From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Jun 1 06:24:39 2003 Received: from parrot.squawk.com (parrot.squawk.com [64.244.111.110]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88761198743 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 06:24:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from toshiba.scifi.squawk.com (toshiba.squawk.com [199.74.151.118]) by parrot.squawk.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B58C925B2CE for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 09:24:30 -0400 (EDT) X-America-Has-Resolve: yes X-Message-Flag: Microsoft Outlook is insecure. Upgrade your Mail Program Now! Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.0.20030601073922.08175eb0@199.74.151.1> X-Sender: njs@199.74.151.1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 08:12:33 -0400 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: Spam blacklist In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030531170833.00bb26a0@pop.earthlink.net> References: <20030531234635.GA15628@firedrake.org> <5.2.0.9.2.20030531164203.00ba42f0@pop.earthlink.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030531153339.00b59438@pop.earthlink.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030531150102.00b8c918@pop.earthlink.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030531150102.00b8c918@pop.earthlink.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030531153339.00b59438@pop.earthlink.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030531164203.00ba42f0@pop.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-401A2DEF; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archive-Number: 200306/1 X-Sequence-Number: 1496 At 05:10 PM 2003-05-31 -0700, Bob Bish wrote: > It appears that my hosting IP may have been recently de-listed. I'll > give it some time for various ISPs to update their databases and see if > those bounces cease. > Many thanks to all who have helped with this. Is your IP address yours, personally, or is it shared? I found this when I googled for the address, and then I checked it. Received: from quake.3dhosting.com (unknown [207.44.172.52]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E20A51959D8 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 13:30:36 -0800 (PST) I won't take mail from this address because it has no reverse resolution. Just as a point. Many hosting companies that intend the host to mostly be used for web are not providing reverse resolution as a "signal". Are you sending mail directly from this host, or are you sending it from this host through the mail server that your ISP maintains? If it is your address, and you use it for e-mail, the hosting company should provide reverse resolution that matches the forward resolution. In the future, just as a suggestion, the right people to handle this issue is the abuse desk at YOUR ISP. It is a fact of life that many ISPs simply do not care that they are sources of spam. They do absolutely nothing about outside complaints. The only time they will take action against a spammer is when they are listed in a blacklist and their own customers start complaining to them. This came up on the postfix mailing list, and a lot of people posted a lot of strong opinions. Then someone who actually worked at an abuse desk posted his story. They had a spamming customer and were ignoring all outside complaints at the direction of management. They asked to be able to terminate the customer, and were told that they could not since the customer was paying their bills. So then they were "escalated" (which is the term for what happens when the listing on a blacklist is broadened from a specific address used by a spammer to a containing network). And the customers of the ISP started to complain. And they threatened to walk. And the next day the paying spamming customer who could not be terminated because they were paying their bills was terminated. Now, when they have a situation where they have a pattern of complaints about a customer, they no longer wait for an escalation: They immediately terminate the customer. And their other customers are not listed in escalations, and they are happy, and they do not threaten to walk. Simple economics. The people you should be complaining to is your ISP. They almost certainly had complaints before you were listed in what I presume was an escalation. And they almost certainly did nothing until the escalation happened. I would start asking hard questions, like how long they knew about the spammer before they terminated him, and if they are going to change their policies so that expansion does not have to happen in the future. Personally, I approve of escalations. My ISPs have made me agree to a strong anti-abuse policy. I like traditional mailing lists. I believe that spam is the single thing that is likely to render mailing lists irrelevant, as e-mail as we know it becomes useless and unused because of the spam problem. I believe that, in general, if all the customers at my ISP are living up to this policy, that I am not likely to be listed in an escalation. And if my ISP is getting service from someone that they should be acting as my agent if their range is listed because their ISP is not enforcing their rules on all of their customers. --- The Rules of Spam: Rule #0: Spam is theft. Rule #1: Spammers lie. (Proposed) Sharp's Corollary: Spammers attempt to re-define "spamming" as that which they do not do. Rule #2: If a spammer seems to be telling the truth, see Rule #1. Chrissman's Corollary: A spammer, when caught, blames his victims. Rule #3: Spammers are stupid. Krueger's Corollary: Spammer lies are really stupid. Pickett's Commentary: Spammer lies are boring. Russell's Corollary: Never underestimate the stupidity of spammers. Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Jun 4 11:49:19 2003 Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.232]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3786E1974AF; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 11:48:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h-66-167-132-216.phndaz91.covad.net ([66.167.132.216] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19NdJc-0002HW-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 11:48:52 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030604114321.00b7c7b0@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 11:48:45 -0700 To: majordomo-users@greatcircle.com, list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Bob Bish Subject: Weird Russian bounces Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200306/2 X-Sequence-Number: 1497 A Russian list member's account was closed. The member's address was @mail.ru. That mail server is badly mis-configured. Not only does it send the resulting bounce messages to the wrong address (the list posting address!), but it put that member's e-mail address in the "From" field of the bounce messages, making them valid as far as majordomo is concerned. It was as if each bounce message was a reply to an individual list message. This happened on a very active list. Luckily I was watching when the first ones came through and removed that address from the list immediately. It was too late by then to catch a lot of them, since they were delayed about 24 hours and being spooled somewhere. About two dozen of them actually went out over the list. If this had happened when I was away from my computer for a couple of days, it would have been a REAL mess because those bounce messages themselves would have started bouncing too after about 24 hours, creating a loop. If you have any list members with addresses @mail.ru, beware. ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jun 5 08:28:35 2003 Received: from minneapolis.mnjazz.com (circles.radparker.com [209.98.250.78]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E38FD196EAD for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:28:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mnjazz.com (localhost.mnjazz.com [127.0.0.1]) by minneapolis.mnjazz.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3785103FB for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:29:27 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3EDF6194.AC6D4B12@mnjazz.com> Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:28:21 -0500 From: Al Iverson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List Managers Subject: standards for iso encoding subject lines? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200306/3 X-Sequence-Number: 1498 Is there a relevant RFC or standards document that would help explain how iso encoding works in situations like email subject lines? i.e. stuff like this: Subject: automatische =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=FCckantwort_?= Tips/pointers appreciated. Regards, Al Iverson -- Al Iverson -- iverson@mnjazz.com -- Minneapolis, Minnesota My pockets hurt. http://www.spamresource.com/ Support Jazz in Minnesota! -- http://www.mnjazz.com/ All opinions are mine alone unless I state otherwise. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jun 5 09:07:06 2003 Received: from tcp.com (tcp.com [66.92.182.248]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF08F196576 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:07:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcp.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by tcp.com (8.12.9+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h55G71XS000576; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:07:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (jlick@localhost) by tcp.com (8.12.9+Sun/8.12.2/Submit) with ESMTP id h55G708m000573; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:07:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:07:00 -0700 (PDT) From: James Lick To: Al Iverson Cc: List Managers Subject: Re: standards for iso encoding subject lines? In-Reply-To: <3EDF6194.AC6D4B12@mnjazz.com> Message-ID: References: <3EDF6194.AC6D4B12@mnjazz.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Archive-Number: 200306/4 X-Sequence-Number: 1499 On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Al Iverson wrote: > Subject: automatische =3D?iso-8859-1?Q?R=3DFCckantwort_?=3D RFCs 2047 and 2231. --- James Lick --- =E9=BB=8E=E5=BB=BA=E6=BA=A5 --- jlick@drivel.com --- htt= p://drivel.com.tw/ --- From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Jun 6 02:14:58 2003 Received: from parrot.squawk.com (parrot.squawk.com [64.244.111.110]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 503261990A3 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 02:12:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from toshiba.scifi.squawk.com (toshiba.squawk.com [199.74.151.118]) by parrot.squawk.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58AD025B2C6 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 05:12:29 -0400 (EDT) X-America-Has-Resolve: yes X-Message-Flag: Microsoft Outlook is insecure. Upgrade your Mail Program Now! Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.0.20030606035859.07cf7d88@199.74.151.1> X-Sender: njs@199.74.151.1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 05:12:11 -0400 To: List Managers From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: standards for iso encoding subject lines? In-Reply-To: References: <3EDF6194.AC6D4B12@mnjazz.com> <3EDF6194.AC6D4B12@mnjazz.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-1D0B6DF8; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archive-Number: 200306/5 X-Sequence-Number: 1500 At 09:07 AM 2003-06-05 -0700, James Lick wrote: >On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Al Iverson wrote: > > Subject: automatische =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=FCckantwort_?= > >RFCs 2047 and 2231. Just as a point: This is a really poorly thought out RFC. You might want to decode those in your MTA or mailing list manager before forwarding them to your subscribers. You *can't* safely do so. I have considered doing this in demime. Several times. The best scheme I can some up with is to convert everthing that is not a letter or number or known punctuation mark to a space. For example: It is completely legitimate for someone to encode a sequence of multiple line end characters in the header, and to have that sequence shielded by the encoding. They could do this to force compliant MUAs to "set the subject off" for emphasis, by encoding Subject: line-end line-end Actual Subject Line-end Line-end This might mean that the subject of the mail would be displayed with blank lines before and after. This, of course, if decoded in transit, would cause the subject to become blank since the first blank line would now delimit the header, and then to move the "actual subject" into the body. They could do nefarious things as well -- since the decoding could also create new headers, possibly after you have elided some headers. This is a real bag of worms. The subject might or might not display there where it was moved into the body...or it might cause the content headers to become part of the body so that the mime decoding of the entire letter is hosed, depending on whether the subject line is before or after the critical headers. As a worst case: Supposing you only allow subscribers to post. If you do the check before this decoding, someone could code their subject ahead of the From: header, and then chop the From: header off, pushing it into the usually not displayed no-mans-land following the header, and causing a new From header that was not the one you checked to appear in the headers... Or they could even convert a text/plain to a text/html. The standard itself says that it is impossible for anything other than the end user's MUA to safely decode these headers, and then it can only decode them for the purpose of display, the original form should be retained and used for header parsing. Like I said, this is a real mess. No one thought about retaining a plain text section, since it seems that the attitude of many of the people who write the mime standards is that people should be forced to upgrade to the latest and greatest bit of mail display software, or get left in the dust. Or that maybe these augmented headers should be hidden somewhere. -- "Forgive him, for he believes that the customs of his tribe are the laws of nature!" -- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Jun 6 10:45:52 2003 Received: from smtp1.Stanford.EDU (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.64.14.23]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D781196C7D for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:45:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by smtp1.Stanford.EDU (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h56HjhDA012108 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:45:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp1.Stanford.EDU (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h56Hjaak012033 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:45:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 1396 invoked by uid 1000); 6 Jun 2003 17:38:55 -0000 To: List Managers Subject: Re: standards for iso encoding subject lines? In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20030606035859.07cf7d88@199.74.151.1> (Nick Simicich's message of "Fri, 06 Jun 2003 05:12:11 -0400") References: <5.2.1.1.0.20030606035859.07cf7d88@199.74.151.1> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:38:55 -0700 Message-ID: <877k7zayxc.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Archive-Number: 200306/6 X-Sequence-Number: 1501 Nick Simicich writes: > Just as a point: This is a really poorly thought out RFC. You might > want to decode those in your MTA or mailing list manager before > forwarding them to your subscribers. You *can't* safely do so. Why do you want to do that? Certainly you're not allowed to do that within that RFC because doing so would break the e-mail protocol. The whole reason why RFC 2047 exists is because 8-bit characters are not allowed in RFC 822 and RFC 2822 headers. > The subject might or might not display there where it was moved into the > body...or it might cause the content headers to become part of the body > so that the mime decoding of the entire letter is hosed, depending on > whether the subject line is before or after the critical headers. No, it can't. Anything that decodes such a header in that fashion is unbelievably broken. The parse of the message happens before the RFC 2047 decoding (and in fact it would be difficult to implement a system that did it in the wrong order and was actually useful). This is specifically noted in the RFC: Only printable and white space character data should be encoded using this scheme. However, since these encoding schemes allow the encoding of arbitrary octet values, mail readers that implement this decoding should also ensure that display of the decoded data on the recipient's terminal will not cause unwanted side-effects. and: NOTE: Decoding and display of encoded-words occurs *after* a structured field body is parsed into tokens. > Like I said, this is a real mess. No one thought about retaining a > plain text section, since it seems that the attitude of many of the > people who write the mime standards is that people should be forced to > upgrade to the latest and greatest bit of mail display software, or get > left in the dust. Or that maybe these augmented headers should be > hidden somewhere. Most use of RFC 2047 is in conjuction with text/plain. It works just fine. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Jun 6 11:10:19 2003 Received: from [66.92.48.201] (dsl092-048-201.sfo2.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.92.48.201]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D83195FAB; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 11:09:25 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: brent@mycroft.greatcircle.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <877k7zayxc.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20030606035859.07cf7d88@199.74.151.1> <877k7zayxc.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 11:09:23 -0700 To: Russ Allbery , List Managers From: Brent Chapman Subject: Re: standards for iso encoding subject lines? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Archive-Number: 200306/7 X-Sequence-Number: 1502 At 10:38 AM -0700 6/6/03, Russ Allbery wrote: >Nick Simicich writes: > > > Just as a point: This is a really poorly thought out RFC. You might > > want to decode those in your MTA or mailing list manager before > > forwarding them to your subscribers. You *can't* safely do so. > >Why do you want to do that? Certainly you're not allowed to do that >within that RFC because doing so would break the e-mail protocol. The >whole reason why RFC 2047 exists is because 8-bit characters are not >allowed in RFC 822 and RFC 2822 headers. Let's say I have an archive of email messages to a list, and want to create an index by subject, or to enable searches by subject. How am I supposed to do this if the Subject header is encoded, and I'm not supposed to decode it except for display? Similar problem with Base64-encoded message bodies (jeez, I hate Outlook). I agree with Nick here: ISO-encoded subject lines are a "solution" to a non-problem, where the people putting for the solution apparently didn't think through most of the consequences of what they were proposing. -Brent -- Brent Chapman From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Jun 6 11:34:48 2003 Received: from smtp3.Stanford.EDU (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.64.14.172]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EC201996BA for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 11:33:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by smtp3.Stanford.EDU (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h56IWxXQ010313 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 11:33:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.Stanford.EDU (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h56IWigj010082 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 11:32:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 2156 invoked by uid 1000); 6 Jun 2003 18:26:03 -0000 To: List Managers Subject: Re: standards for iso encoding subject lines? In-Reply-To: (Brent Chapman's message of "Fri, 6 Jun 2003 11:09:23 -0700") References: <5.2.1.1.0.20030606035859.07cf7d88@199.74.151.1> <877k7zayxc.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 11:26:03 -0700 Message-ID: <87of1b9i6c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Archive-Number: 200306/8 X-Sequence-Number: 1503 Brent Chapman writes: > At 10:38 AM -0700 6/6/03, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Why do you want to do that? Certainly you're not allowed to do that >> within that RFC because doing so would break the e-mail protocol. The >> whole reason why RFC 2047 exists is because 8-bit characters are not >> allowed in RFC 822 and RFC 2822 headers. > Let's say I have an archive of email messages to a list, and want to > create an index by subject, or to enable searches by subject. How am I > supposed to do this if the Subject header is encoded, and I'm not > supposed to decode it except for display? I would consider that to be decoding for display. Once the mail has reached the final recipient (like an archive or an IMAP store), it's fine to decode it. You just can't decode it if you're going to continue to send it on by SMTP. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Jun 10 09:23:23 2003 Received: from parrot.squawk.com (parrot.squawk.com [64.244.111.110]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA55E19631F for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:23:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from toshiba.scifi.squawk.com (toshiba.squawk.com [199.74.151.118]) by parrot.squawk.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 434FB25B204 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:23:18 -0400 (EDT) X-America-Has-Resolve: yes X-Message-Flag: Microsoft Outlook is insecure. Upgrade your Mail Program Now! Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.0.20030610112354.39be91e8@199.74.151.1> X-Sender: njs@199.74.151.1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:19:54 -0400 To: List Managers From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: standards for iso encoding subject lines? In-Reply-To: References: <877k7zayxc.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <5.2.1.1.0.20030606035859.07cf7d88@199.74.151.1> <877k7zayxc.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-1E905000; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archive-Number: 200306/9 X-Sequence-Number: 1504 At 11:09 AM 2003-06-06 -0700, Brent Chapman wrote: >At 10:38 AM -0700 6/6/03, Russ Allbery wrote: >>Nick Simicich writes: >> >> > Just as a point: This is a really poorly thought out RFC. You might >> > want to decode those in your MTA or mailing list manager before >> > forwarding them to your subscribers. You *can't* safely do so. >> >>Why do you want to do that? Certainly you're not allowed to do that >>within that RFC because doing so would break the e-mail protocol. The >>whole reason why RFC 2047 exists is because 8-bit characters are not >>allowed in RFC 822 and RFC 2822 headers. Yes, but that does not mean that you have to put the encoding of them there. Were I writing the standard, I would have required that the old headers contain the best possible encoding in seven bit characters. If no such encoding existed, leave the header out or leave the clause out. The stuff that was encoded should have been elsewhere. Have a special header for it, or (probably better) put it in a new body section, or something. Mail headers have traditionally been human readable. This RFC violated that basic principle, and that, in and of itself, made it a bad idea. >Let's say I have an archive of email messages to a list, and want to >create an index by subject, or to enable searches by subject. How am I >supposed to do this if the Subject header is encoded, and I'm not supposed >to decode it except for display? I'm not sure. Consider that all handling of the data must be done in a binary safe manner. The encoder could encode a binary zero byte, for example, which will screw up most typical string handling. Also, the data could well be in a double byte character set. It might well not be represented by any 7 bit character. Your parser that assumes characters that fit in a normal (say) representation of a C string is probably already broken. The parser that tokenizes into words is also likely broken. A space is not a space, a punctuation is not a punctuation, and a word-character is not a word-character and a non-word character is not a non-word character. Except in the context of the character set...which is not constant for the document, if I remember right. I have considered the simple scheme of looking for this type of encoding in the headers and returning them to their origin for the lists I run which are supposed to be English. The thing that stops me is that, just as in the cases of html body sections, the people writing the e-mail didn't always know what they were doing that caused the mime bodies to be generated. This was the original straw that caused me to write demime, and this is why I would want to do something similar for encoded headers. But the standard makes it impossible. If your parser can handle all of these things (including, if I remember correctly, character changes within the line) then it can index things encoded in this manner. >Similar problem with Base64-encoded message bodies (jeez, I hate Outlook). There you have a different solution, in that you can decode them and re-encode in QP. Outlook is not the only guilty party there, though. >I agree with Nick here: ISO-encoded subject lines are a "solution" to a >non-problem, where the people putting for the solution apparently didn't >think through most of the consequences of what they were proposing. I believe that the problem was real enough, especially for the people who use character sets that are multi-byte. However, I do not talk to people who communicate in those character sets with me, because I don't read any language that requires them, so I don't see it as a problem. What I am extremely affronted by is the encoding of ordinary subject lines simply because (I've seen this) someone selected 8859-1 and then didn't use any characters that were not represented in ASCII. More frequently, someone simply picks the wrong tic mark, and this throws the whole header into encoding. I feel that the standard should have forbidden the encoding of non-printable characters. There is no good reason to encode a newline, for example, or a control character, or a binary zero, nor are there good reasons to have same in subject lines -- in ASCII, these characters may not be in the text of the subject for a simple reason: They are used to delimit the line by the parsers. If the character does not resolve to printable point in the character set used, the standard should permit the message to be bounced/trashed/non-delivered, at the least. And if someone has a handler that locally can deal with eight bit characters in the headers, the decoded header should not break header parsing that is based on CR/LF or LF ending a "line", a space at the beginning of the line showing a continuation, and a blank line ending the headers. It should be possible to store a decoded headed in an eight-bit safe message store without breaking reparsing of the header. (In other words, there were good reasons for forbidding these things, and the standard should not have made this a free for all.) -- He said: "There are people from Baath here reporting everything that goes on. There are cameras here recording our faces. If the Americans were to withdraw and everything were to return to the way it was before, we want to make sure that we survive the massacre that would follow as Baath go house to house killing anyone who voiced opposition to Saddam. In public, we always pledge our allegiance to Saddam, but in our hearts we feel something else." Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Jun 13 20:27:11 2003 Received: from grouse.mail.pas.earthlink.net (grouse.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.116]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34D9E196B68 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 20:27:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h-69-3-76-78.phndaz91.covad.net ([69.3.76.78] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by grouse.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19R1h6-00024y-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 20:27:08 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030613202547.03297cd8@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 20:27:06 -0700 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Bob Bish Subject: Error codes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200306/10 X-Sequence-Number: 1505 I found this summary of error codes for Microsoft Exchange 2000 servers: http://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/Q284/2/04.asp&NoWebContent=1&NoWebContent=1&NoWebContent=1 Does anyone know of any such summaries for other servers? ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jun 16 07:41:08 2003 Received: from yertle.kcilink.com (yertle.kcilink.com [216.194.193.105]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A65FB196608 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 07:41:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yertle.kcilink.com (Postfix, from userid 100) id 178E82178B; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:40:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Vivek Khera MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16109.55031.997265.905793@yertle.int.kciLink.com> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:40:55 -0400 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Error codes In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030613202547.03297cd8@pop.earthlink.net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030613202547.03297cd8@pop.earthlink.net> X-Mailer: VM 7.14 under 21.4 (patch 12) "Portable Code" XEmacs Lucid X-Archive-Number: 200306/11 X-Sequence-Number: 1506 >>>>> "BB" == Bob Bish writes: BB> I found this summary of error codes for Microsoft Exchange 2000 servers: BB> http://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/Q284/2/04.asp&NoWebContent=1&NoWebContent=1&NoWebContent=1 BB> Does anyone know of any such summaries for other servers? My guess is that since they reference RFC 1891 and RFC 1893 as the source of those codes, that these RFCs are what you're looking for. However, not that not all mailers out there implement DSN, or do not implement it completely. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Jun 24 12:13:43 2003 Received: from mail-out1.apple.com (mail-out1.apple.com [17.254.0.52]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 930E4195AF8 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:13:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5OJDdiB013336 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:13:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scv2.apple.com (scv2.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:13:39 -0700 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv2.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5OJDaaH009646; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:13:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:13:37 -0700 Subject: yahoo groups contact? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: Chuq Von Rospach To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Chuq Von Rospach Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-Archive-Number: 200306/12 X-Sequence-Number: 1507 is there a yahoo groups contact on this list? Anyone have one? I have something that's come up I want to check with them on before I say anything here. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Jun 25 09:28:29 2003 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (mail-out2.apple.com [17.254.0.51]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81D9A195A43 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:28:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5PGSLfR006571 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:28:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scv1.apple.com (scv1.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:28:04 -0700 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv1.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5PGSKdi023766; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:28:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:28:22 -0700 Subject: is AOL coughing a hairball? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: Chuq Von Rospach To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Chuq Von Rospach Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <0A0C58EF-A72A-11D7-9B38-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-Archive-Number: 200306/13 X-Sequence-Number: 1508 we're seeing AOL and netscape.net blocking email, both to my home and work domain. Error returned is: ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to mailin-01.mx.aol.com.: <<< 550-The IP address you're using to connect to AOL is either open to the <<< 550-free relaying of e-mail, is serving as an open proxy, or is a dynamic <<< 550-(residential) IP address. AOL cannot accept further e-mail <<< 550-transactions from your server until either your server is closed to free <<< 550-relaying/proxy, or your ISP removes your IP address from their list of <<< 550-dynamic IP addresses. For additional information, please visit <<< 550 http://postmaster.info.aol.com. ... while talking to mailin-03.mx.aol.com.: >>> QUIT <<< 550-The IP address you're using to connect to AOL is either open to the <<< 550-free relaying of e-mail, is serving as an open proxy, or is a dynamic <<< 550-(residential) IP address. AOL cannot accept further e-mail <<< 550-transactions from your server until either your server is closed to free <<< 550-relaying/proxy, or your ISP removes your IP address from their list of <<< 550-dynamic IP addresses. For additional information, please visit <<< 550 http://postmaster.info.aol.com. ... while talking to mailin-02.mx.aol.com.: >>> QUIT testing against AOL's own lists shows we're clean. It looks like AOL is coughing a hairball here. Are other folks seeing this as well? It doesn't seem to be a 100% block, either, leading me to think some of their machines are messed up... From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Jun 25 09:52:59 2003 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (mail-out2.apple.com [17.254.0.51]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 677F6195A9D for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:52:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5PGqrfR020447 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:52:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scv2.apple.com (scv2.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:52:57 -0700 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv2.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5PGqsaH015761; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:52:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:52:56 -0700 Subject: update on AOL... Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: Chuq Von Rospach To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Chuq Von Rospach Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <78111B0F-A72D-11D7-9B38-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-Archive-Number: 200306/14 X-Sequence-Number: 1509 seems to be fixed. further looking at the logs shows the earliest reject was about 6:18 localtime this morning, and the last about 8:04. So it looks like they rolled out a bad set of filters or something, and then scrambled to fix it... From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Jun 25 18:06:26 2003 Received: from parrot.squawk.com (parrot.squawk.com [64.244.111.110]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E32471963A1 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:06:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from toshiba.scifi.squawk.com (toshiba.squawk.com [199.74.151.118]) by parrot.squawk.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D750E25B2A8 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:06:21 -0400 (EDT) X-America-Has-Resolve: yes X-Message-Flag: Microsoft Outlook is insecure. Upgrade your Mail Program Now! Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.0.20030625203609.13112ec0@199.74.151.1> X-Sender: njs@199.74.151.1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:03:15 -0400 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: yahoo groups contact? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-B211B38; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archive-Number: 200306/15 X-Sequence-Number: 1510 At 12:13 PM 2003-06-24 -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >is there a yahoo groups contact on this list? Anyone have one? I have >something that's come up I want to check with them on before I say >anything here. As a side point, after years of complaining, I finally managed to get someone to reply to me when I faxed the copyright violations office at yahoo. I then did silly things until they ran out of silly things to ask me about and then they did nothing for weeks. Then, after I faxed them several more times, reminding me that I had done all of the silly things they asked me to do, they quit responding, and I figured, well, it has been years now, and they have never responded before. So I struck out. My original response was going to me a meetoo for the contact, but I checked before hitting send, and they had finally removed rally-l from their list. Yep, after years of asking, with the connection long severed, so that it looked like rally-l was long dead, they finally removed the rally-l list from yahoogroups. They didn't bother telling me, but they You have to understand that they had incorrect information and I believe that this was damaging me. I made this clear in complaint after complaint, but this was the first response I ever got. So, as a suggestion, if it is an issue where you might have a compilation copyright, on a group that you want out of yahoogroups, they are finally responding to that argument at their copyright violations office. -- He said: "There are people from Baath here reporting everything that goes on. There are cameras here recording our faces. If the Americans were to withdraw and everything were to return to the way it was before, we want to make sure that we survive the massacre that would follow as Baath go house to house killing anyone who voiced opposition to Saddam. In public, we always pledge our allegiance to Saddam, but in our hearts we feel something else." Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Jun 25 18:21:29 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05A4C1972FD for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:21:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5Q1K68b014147; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:20:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:20:06 -0700 Subject: Re: yahoo groups contact? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , list-managers@greatcircle.com To: Nick Simicich From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20030625203609.13112ec0@199.74.151.1> Message-Id: <51ED1722-A774-11D7-AB6A-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-Archive-Number: 200306/16 X-Sequence-Number: 1511 On Wednesday, June 25, 2003, at 06:03 PM, Nick Simicich wrote: > So, as a suggestion, if it is an issue where you might have a > compilation copyright, on a group that you want out of yahoogroups, > they are finally responding to that argument at their copyright > violations office. > Nope. This is something more of interest to Yahoo than to me, sort of. Through a mutual contact, i got a message through to their security group. That contact said they'd be contacting me right away. almost 36 hours later, I'm still waiting. I'm not impressed. In a day or so, I'll just let everyone know what I've run into, and stop worrying about it. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Jun 25 23:16:49 2003 Received: from jbod.calchiro.com (jbod.calchiro.com [66.93.182.128]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B38F0196428 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:16:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bj (bj.calchiro.com [66.93.182.114]) by jbod.calchiro.com (8.12.8/linuxconf) with SMTP id h5Q5CvKI022448 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:12:58 -0700 From: "Brian Zaleski" To: Subject: Re: update on AOL... Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:19:25 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4925.2800 In-Reply-To: <78111B0F-A72D-11D7-9B38-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Importance: Normal X-Archive-Number: 200306/17 X-Sequence-Number: 1512 Chuq, If it happens again, you may want to contact: John Reardon AOL Postmaster 703-265-3543 Very nice guy and very helpful. Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com > [mailto:list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com]On Behalf Of Chuq Von > Rospach > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 9:53 AM > To: list-managers@greatcircle.com > Cc: Chuq Von Rospach > Subject: update on AOL... > > > > seems to be fixed. further looking at the logs shows the earliest > reject was about 6:18 localtime this morning, and the last about 8:04. > So it looks like they rolled out a bad set of filters or something, and > then scrambled to fix it... From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jun 26 07:38:10 2003 Received: from yabbie (pcp03381044pcs.groton01.ct.comcast.net [68.54.123.49]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E833E1964CD for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 07:38:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yabbie ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by yabbie with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19VXsz-0005bl-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:38:05 -0400 To: "Brian Zaleski" Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: update on AOL... In-Reply-To: Message from "Brian Zaleski" of "Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:19:25 PDT." References: X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:38:05 -0400 Message-ID: <21560.1056638285@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200306/18 X-Sequence-Number: 1513 On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:19:25 -0700 Brian Zaleski wrote: > John Reardon AOL Postmaster xxx-xxx-3543 > Very nice guy and very helpful. A guy who now has a different phone number -- can you imagine the number of people who want to bend his ear? -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jun 26 08:32:14 2003 Received: from novus.isp.gweep.ca (novus.isp.gweep.ca [64.69.80.178]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C8B219652A for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 08:32:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by novus.isp.gweep.ca (Postfix on SuSE Linux 7.1 (i386), from userid 1180) id E534744D2A; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 08:32:12 -0700 (PDT) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: META: strange digest timing on this list From: Brian Edmonds Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 08:32:12 -0700 In-Reply-To: <21560.1056638285@kanga.nu> (J C Lawrence's message of "Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:38:05 -0400") Message-ID: <37fzlw26tf.fsf_-_@lios.aq2.gweep.ca> User-Agent: Gnus/5.090015 (Oort Gnus v0.15) XEmacs/21.1 (Channel Islands) References: <21560.1056638285@kanga.nu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Archive-Number: 200306/19 X-Sequence-Number: 1514 Overnight I received four messages from the list. The odd thing is that I'm on the digest list and they all came as separate digests. How often does the list do digests? I've noticed for months now that I typically get a whole lot of little digests, rather than one or two a day. Brian. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jun 26 16:36:20 2003 Received: from [66.92.48.201] (dsl092-048-201.sfo2.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.92.48.201]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B230A196371; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:36:19 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: brent@mycroft.greatcircle.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <37fzlw26tf.fsf_-_@lios.aq2.gweep.ca> References: <21560.1056638285@kanga.nu> <37fzlw26tf.fsf_-_@lios.aq2.gweep.ca> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:36:16 -0700 To: Brian Edmonds , list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Brent Chapman Subject: Re: META: strange digest timing on this list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Archive-Number: 200306/20 X-Sequence-Number: 1515 At 8:32 AM -0700 6/26/03, Brian Edmonds wrote: >Overnight I received four messages from the list. The odd thing is that >I'm on the digest list and they all came as separate digests. How often >does the list do digests? I've noticed for months now that I typically >get a whole lot of little digests, rather than one or two a day. > >Brian. We're currently running an out-of-date version of Majordomo2, which had some bugs in the digest code. The easiest way to work around them was to generate digests every 4 hours, rather than every day. Now that I'm back in the USA (I was living in Australia for the last 18 months, running Great Circle from 8000 miles away while I worked on a masters degree), I might finally get around to upgrading the version of Majordomo2 that we're running... Then again, I've got a whole bunch of other stuff ahead of that on the "now that I'm back in the USA" list, so it will probably be a while longer... :-) -Brent -- Brent Chapman Great Circle Associates, Inc. -- Silicon Valley's IT Infrastructure Experts http://www.greatcircle.com/ +1 650 962 0841 From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jun 30 10:58:46 2003 Received: from smoe.org (jane.smoe.org [199.201.145.78]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A0C4196CA5 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:58:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smoe.org (ident-user@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smoe.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5UHwaIN022770; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:58:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jeffw@localhost) by smoe.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h5UHwZ95022761; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:58:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:58:35 -0400 From: Jeff Wasilko To: list-owners@smoe.org Subject: ATT/Comcast switchover occurring today... Message-ID: <20030630175835.GA561@jane.smoe.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.99i X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . X-Archive-Number: 200306/21 X-Sequence-Number: 1516 From another list I'm on... ----- Forwarded message ----- Public service announcement... Comcast (former AT&T Broadband) is officially switching over the domain names for their mailservers today. If you know someone at an email address of the 'attbi.com' domain <*cough*>, it's changing to 'comcast.net'; moreover, said users won't be able to connect and check their email (and sadly wondering why no one writes...) until they make some manual configuration adjustments, unless they ran the 'auto-config wizard', and rebooted this morning. ----- End forwarded message ----- From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jun 30 13:54:03 2003 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net (rwcrmhc12.comcast.net [216.148.227.85]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A23C195A41 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:54:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ee-2k.climber.org (12-236-47-35.client.attbi.com[12.236.47.35](untrusted sender)) by attbi.com (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <2003063020540001400omi9ae>; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:54:01 +0000 Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.0.20030630134526.02045150@pop.jetcafe.org> X-Sender: steveeckert@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:50:11 -0700 To: Jeff Wasilko From: SRE Subject: Re: ATT/Comcast switchover occurring today... Cc: list-owners@smoe.org, list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <20030630175835.GA561@jane.smoe.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Archive-Number: 200306/22 X-Sequence-Number: 1517 At 10:58 AM 6/30/2003, Jeff Wasilko wrote: >email address of the 'attbi.com' domain <*cough*>, it's changing to >'comcast.net'; moreover, said users won't be able to connect and check >their email (and sadly wondering why no one writes...) until they make >some manual configuration adjustments, unless they ran the 'auto-config >wizard', and rebooted this morning. That auto-config wizard scares me. ATTBI once told me that I had to install their stuff or I couldn't get help with my connectivity problem, and explained that their CDROM allowed them to REMOTELY RECONFIGURE my computer. That's the reason they insist (according to the helpline person) on removing hardware and software firewalls before rendering assistance, because they intend to essentially hack into your machine. All that is required to make the change is to replace the SMTP and POP servers and enable SSL transactions... USUALLY. At least one of the mailboxes I was using at attbi.com was already in use (according to them) at comcast.net, so it's NOT just a matter of changing the domain name of your subscribers. Their whole address may be different, and if you just change the domain you'll be spamming an innocent in some cases. Sigh. Good reason to own your own domain name. Also, I've confirmed with Comcast that their website is under repair. Right now I cannot read my email through their web interface since it's down. They are showing many scripting errors (fatal) on places like "contact us" and generally look like they're tripping over their own shoelaces with a poorly-thought-out transition. Telling people "we won't tell you how to change your email until AFTER your service has been interrupted" is surely the stoopidest idea I've seen from an ISP. Steve