From list-managers-owner Wed Sep 1 05:52:19 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA23641; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 05:24:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ligarius-fe0.ultra.net (ligarius-fe0.ultra.net [146.115.8.189]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA23634 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 05:23:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from voyager (d237.dial-4.cmb.ma.ultra.net [209.6.67.237]) by ligarius-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult/n20340/mtc.v2) with SMTP id IAA31555; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 08:35:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19990901123618.00b69b9c@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Sender: stanr@pop.ma.ultranet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 08:36:18 -0400 To: Carsten Hoeger From: Stan Ryckman Subject: Re: Majordomo and Postfix and Approvals, Oh, My! Cc: Wietse Venema , Nick Simicich , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, postfix-users@cloud9.net Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 08:36 PM 8/30/99 +0200, Carsten Hoeger wrote: [snip] >IMHO, the Delivered-To: mechanism has to be deactivateable. >I removed those lines from source, because we are not able >to use postfix anymore if not. > >We are using very complex procmail-filters for our support >and other nonsingle-user accounts. > >E.g. mail reaches support, it'll be bounced to some user >and if this user is on vacation, it'll be bounced back and postfix >does not like this... :-( Presumably these procmail filters add something to the headers so that a situation like this is recognizable and wouldn't loop. Since the procmail filters already are altering the headers, why not have them also strip Delivered-To: on the first pass? (After all, it's no longer exactly the "same" message.) Just a thought, Stan From list-managers-owner Wed Sep 1 08:52:40 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA25578; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 08:26:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ma-1.rootsweb.com (ma-1.rootsweb.com [209.192.148.153]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA25571 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 08:26:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from twp@localhost) by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA96991 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 11:38:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 11:38:41 -0400 From: Tim Pierce To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Majordomo and Postfix and Approvals, Oh, My! Message-ID: <19990901113841.M87853@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <19990830173858.A4FF74579B@spike.porcupine.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.7us In-Reply-To: <19990830173858.A4FF74579B@spike.porcupine.org> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Wouldn't another solution be to patch Majordomo to use a different mail alias for approving messages -- say, `listname-approve'? Then the Delivered-To header on the originally submitted message would not necessarily interfere with the Delivered-To header on the approved copy. -- Regards, Tim Pierce RootsWeb.com lead system admonsterator and Chief Hacking Officer From list-managers-owner Wed Sep 1 18:09:19 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA02522; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 18:01:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sparknet.net (mail.sparknet.net [207.67.22.140]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id SAA02515 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 18:01:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e (e.sparknet.net [206.230.221.6]) by mail.sparknet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA00432; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 20:14:13 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19990901200828.009c6be0@207.67.22.140> X-Sender: listuniverse@207.67.22.140 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 20:11:18 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Christopher Knight Subject: Vivian's back! [was Re: Where did the List of Lists go?] Cc: vivian@catalog.com In-Reply-To: <199908311822.NAA29997@bonkers.taronga.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 01:22 PM 8/31/1999 -0500, Stephanie da Silva wrote: >What happened to vivian Neou's List of Lists? It seemingly vanished off >catalog.com. I had wondered this same thing, but just went to it tonight: http://catalog.com/vivian/interest-group-search.html Glad to see your site is back online, Vivian! :-) -Chris From list-managers-owner Mon Sep 6 12:06:05 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA15408; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 11:20:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from euler.central.cranfield.ac.uk (euler.central.cranfield.ac.uk [138.250.48.9]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA15396 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 11:19:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from neumann.ccc.cranfield.ac.uk ([138.250.24.137] ident=cc047) by euler.central.cranfield.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11O3ZW-00007x-00; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 19:32:54 +0100 Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 19:32:53 +0100 (BST) From: Jeffrey Goldberg X-Sender: cc047@neumann.ccc.cranfield.ac.uk Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg To: postmaster@hotmail.com cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Unexplained 554 from hotmail.com. Message-ID: Organization: Cranfield University Computer Centre MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Dear HotMail postmasters, Cranfield hosts a mailing list of MBA students, and a number of these have their mail forwarded to hotmail.com addresses. A recent posting to the list produced the bounce below, which is a bit surprising. Do you have a limit on the number of RCPTs in a single transaction? (According to SMTP standards you should accept at least 100). But if that limit is less than 10 how do are managers of medium/large email discussion lists supposed to cope? Or is this just a temporary failure, and not the consequence of a poorly designed anti-spam mechanism? -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg +44 (0)1234 750 111 x 2826 Assistant Postmaster Cranfield Computer Centre J.Goldberg@Cranfield.ac.uk http://WWW.Cranfield.ac.uk/public/cc/cc047/ Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 17:00:57 +0100 From: Mail Delivery System To: owner-ftmba_1998@Cranfield.ac.uk Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. A message that you sent could not be delivered to all of its recipients. The following address(es) failed: andrefrota@hotmail.com: (generated from a.matta-frota.ftmba.1998@Cranfield.ac.uk): SMTP error from remote mailer after MAIL FROM: : host mail6.hotmail.com [216.33.151.135]: 554 Transaction failed randrianjohany@hotmail.com: (generated from mn954846@mailboxes.ccc.cranfield.ac.uk): SMTP error from remote mailer after MAIL FROM: : host mail6.hotmail.com [216.33.151.135]: 554 Transaction failed dboucartcreuze@hotmail.com: (generated from mn954843@mailboxes.ccc.cranfield.ac.uk): SMTP error from remote mailer after MAIL FROM: : host mail6.hotmail.com [216.33.151.135]: 554 Transaction failed nicktoone@hotmail.com: (generated from mn951654@mailboxes.ccc.cranfield.ac.uk): SMTP error from remote mailer after MAIL FROM: : host mail6.hotmail.com [216.33.151.135]: 554 Transaction failed annamaree_shaw@hotmail.com: (generated from mn952394@mailboxes.ccc.cranfield.ac.uk): SMTP error from remote mailer after MAIL FROM: : host mail6.hotmail.com [216.33.151.135]: 554 Transaction failed Tehsinn@hotmail.com: (generated from mn952266@mailboxes.ccc.cranfield.ac.uk): SMTP error from remote mailer after MAIL FROM: : host mail6.hotmail.com [216.33.151.135]: 554 Transaction failed m_mortimore@hotmail.com: (generated from mn952583@mailboxes.ccc.cranfield.ac.uk): SMTP error from remote mailer after MAIL FROM: : host mail6.hotmail.com [216.33.151.135]: 554 Transaction failed a_hawkin@hotmail.com: (generated from mn950247@mailboxes.ccc.cranfield.ac.uk): SMTP error from remote mailer after MAIL FROM: : host mail6.hotmail.com [216.33.151.135]: 554 Transaction failed micaela_cook@hotmail.com: (generated from mn952022@mailboxes.ccc.cranfield.ac.uk): SMTP error from remote mailer after MAIL FROM: : host mail6.hotmail.com [216.33.151.135]: 554 Transaction failed nbernardo99@hotmail.com: (generated from mn952023@mailboxes.ccc.cranfield.ac.uk): SMTP error from remote mailer after MAIL FROM: : host mail6.hotmail.com [216.33.151.135]: 554 Transaction failed ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------ Return-path: Received: from majordom by euler.central.cranfield.ac.uk with local (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11O1B5-0006kq-00; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 16:59:31 +0100 Received: from mnnt107c.som.cranfield.ac.uk ([138.250.112.107] helo=mnnt107c.som.pc.cranfield.ac.uk) by euler.central.cranfield.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11O1B3-0006lA-00 for ftmba.1998@ecs.pc.cranfield.ac.uk; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 16:59:29 +0100 From: Reply-To: H.R.Griffiths.Ftmba.1998@Cranfield.ac.uk To: ftmba.1998@Cranfield.ac.uk Subject: Ball - refund & spare tickets Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 16:59:22 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time) X-Mailer: Simeon for Win32 Version 4.1.2 Build (32) X-Authentication: none MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ftmba_1998@Cranfield.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Dear All. One or two people have had to pull out of the ball last minute which is a shame but not a problem, yet. However, we will be confirming numbers and costs to Woburn first thing Wednesday morning. After we have confirmed numbers & costs, we will not be able to give refunds or change food & drink orders. This is because we have done our utmost on your behalf to spend all of the money, so there wont be any left to refund.... Also, we do now have a few spare tickets if anyone wants to invite friends etc. First come first serve. email me. The Ball Committee ---------------------- Cranfield University H.R.Griffiths.Ftmba.1998@Cranfield.ac.uk From list-managers-owner Mon Sep 6 16:04:49 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA17821; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 15:26:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA17814 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 15:25:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197] (may be forged)) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA19806 ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 15:39:40 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 15:24:59 -0700 To: Jeffrey Goldberg , postmaster@hotmail.com From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Unexplained 554 from hotmail.com. Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 7:32 PM +0100 9/6/99, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > Or is this just a temporary failure, and not the consequence of a poorly > designed anti-spam mechanism? Looks like hotmail barfed to me. I've seen those rarely... -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + The Jedi that I admire most met up with Darth Maul and now he's toast... (Weird Al Yankovic - The Saga Begins) From list-managers-owner Mon Sep 6 17:20:13 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA18301; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 16:40:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA18294 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 16:40:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA08916; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 16:15:35 -0700 To: Jeffrey Goldberg cc: postmaster@hotmail.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Unexplained 554 from hotmail.com. In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 06 Sep 1999 19:32:53 +0100. From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 16:15:35 -0700 Message-ID: <8914.936659735@monkeys.com> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , you wrote: >Dear HotMail postmasters, > >Cranfield hosts a mailing list of MBA students, and a number of >these have their mail forwarded to hotmail.com addresses. A recent >posting to the list produced the bounce below, which is a bit surprising. > >Do you have a limit on the number of RCPTs in a single transaction? Doesn't everybody? >(According to SMTP standards you should accept at least 100). I may be mistaken, but I believe that number is just a suggestion, and nor a requirement. >But if that >limit is less than 10 how do are managers of medium/large email discussion >lists supposed to cope? Ideally, if their limit is set to 10, then they should give 4xx SMTP response codes after the first 10 RCPT TOs (not 5xx responses) and then your MTA should be smart enough to send the message to just 10 Hotmail recipients at a time. If your MTA isn't smart enough to do that, then I believe that it qualifies as being "broken". Note however that Hotmail was giving you 5xx (permanent) failure responses, not 4xx (temporary) failure responses, so the real problem would indeed seem to be on their end. >Or is this just a temporary failure, and not the consequence of a poorly >designed anti-spam mechanism? I read something just the other day on some (Internet) industry news site that said that Hotmail has been having some "technical difficulties" lately. The problem you experienced may perhaps be related to that in some way. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- FREE Web Harvester Protection - http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ - Try it! -- FREE DynamicIP Spam Filtering - http://www.imrss.org/dssl/ - TELL YOUR ISP! From list-managers-owner Mon Sep 6 20:50:11 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA20271; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 20:09:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gva.net (MAIL.GVA.NET [216.80.135.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id UAA20263 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 20:09:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199909070309.UAA20263@honor.greatcircle.com> Received: from default [216.80.135.15] by gva.net [216.80.135.3] with SMTP (MDaemon.v2.7.SP5.R) for ; Mon, 06 Sep 1999 23:34:38 -0400 From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 23:20:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Unexplained 554 from hotmail.com. Reply-to: bernie@fantasyfarm.com References: Your message of Mon, 06 Sep 1999 19:32:53 +0100. In-reply-to: <8914.936659735@monkeys.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a) X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM X-Return-Path: bernie@fantasyfarm.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 6 Sep 99, at 16:15, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > In message k>, you wrote: > >Do you have a limit on the number of RCPTs in a single transaction? > > Doesn't everybody? > > >(According to SMTP standards you should accept at least 100). > > I may be mistaken, but I believe that number is just a suggestion, and > nor a requirement. Well, the spec is a bit tricky to read in this section, but: > > 4.5.3. SIZES > > > > There are several objects that have required minimum maximum > > sizes. That is, every implementation must be able to receive > > objects of at least these sizes, but must not send objects > > larger than these sizes. > > > > **************************************************** > > * * > > * TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE, IMPLEMENTATION * > > * TECHNIQUES WHICH IMPOSE NO LIMITS ON THE LENGTH * > > * OF THESE OBJECTS SHOULD BE USED. * > > * * > > **************************************************** [...] > > > > recipients buffer > > > > The maximum total number of recipients that must be > > buffered is 100 recipients. > > That is, 100 recipients is the 'minimum maximum' required by the protocol, and so if you can't handle 100 recipients you're not compliant. Moreover, another strange part is that: > > Errors due to exceeding these limits may be reported by using > > the reply codes, for example: > > > > 500 Line too long. > > > > 501 Path too long > > > > 552 Too many recipients. *552* is the error you ought to get for too many recipients. 554 isn't right, so I wonder/suspect that something else is awry at hotmail /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner Mon Sep 6 21:05:46 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA20594; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 20:56:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA20587 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 20:56:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197] (may be forged)) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA19936 ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 21:08:43 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8914.936659735@monkeys.com> References: <8914.936659735@monkeys.com> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 21:02:37 -0700 To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" , Jeffrey Goldberg From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Unexplained 554 from hotmail.com. Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 4:15 PM -0700 9/6/99, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >>Do you have a limit on the number of RCPTs in a single transaction? > > Doesn't everybody? No. >>(According to SMTP standards you should accept at least 100). > > I may be mistaken, but I believe that number is just a suggestion, and > nor a requirement. -- you are mistaken, sir. According to the latest draft of the standard update for RFC821, a limitation of less than 100 RCPT-TO is a violation of the standard. You must accept at least 100. If you limit beyond that, the restriction has to be orderly (silently deleting mail or recipients that goes over the limit is explicitly denied -- at one point, AOL did that. I don't know if they still do, but that's against the standards. See the section "recipients buffer" in the above URL, Ronald. (and perhaps you ought to hang onto the URL, so you don't guess and give out bad information next time) > Ideally, if their limit is set to 10, then they should give 4xx SMTP response > codes after the first 10 RCPT TOs (not 5xx responses) and then your MTA > should be smart enough to send the message to just 10 Hotmail recipients > at a time. it should return a 452 "too many recipients". They also allow for a 5xx reply, using 500, 501 or 552. (isn't looking it up fun?) -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + The Jedi that I admire most met up with Darth Maul and now he's toast... (Weird Al Yankovic - The Saga Begins) From list-managers-owner Mon Sep 6 22:49:49 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA21275; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 22:20:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.svr.pol.co.uk (mail1.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.18]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA21261 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 22:19:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-24.silver.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.23.24] ident=cc047) by mail1.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11ODsI-0005TM-00; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 06:32:58 +0100 Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 06:32:54 +0100 (BST) From: Jeffrey Goldberg X-Sender: cc047@localhost.localdomain Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg To: Chuq Von Rospach cc: postmaster@hotmail.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Unexplained 554 from hotmail.com. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Organization: Cranfield University Computer Centre MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > At 7:32 PM +0100 9/6/99, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > > Or is this just a temporary failure, and not the consequence of a poorly > > designed anti-spam mechanism? > > Looks like hotmail barfed to me. I've seen those rarely... That is almost certainly the case. Later messages went through fine. I was just concerned because it was the list I had with the largest number of hotmail subscribers, and 10 seemed like a plausible magic number. -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg +44 (0)1234 750 111 x 2826 Cranfield Computer Centre FAX 751 814 J.Goldberg@Cranfield.ac.uk http://WWW.Cranfield.ac.uk/public/cc/cc047/ Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice. From list-managers-owner Mon Sep 6 23:20:11 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA21568; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 22:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail3.svr.pol.co.uk (mail3.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.19]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA21556 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 22:49:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-24.silver.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.23.24] ident=cc047) by mail3.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11OELG-0007xd-00; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 07:02:54 +0100 Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 07:02:50 +0100 (BST) From: Jeffrey Goldberg X-Sender: cc047@localhost.localdomain Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" cc: postmaster@hotmail.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Unexplained 554 from hotmail.com. In-Reply-To: <8914.936659735@monkeys.com> Message-ID: Organization: Cranfield University Computer Centre MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > >(According to SMTP standards you should accept at least 100). > > I may be mistaken, but I believe that number is just a suggestion, and > nor a requirement. I looked at a few things after I wrote that and could not find a requirement (or suggestion) of accepting 100 recipients. There is a requirement in RFC 821 4.5.3. SIZES There are several objects that have required minimum maximum sizes. That is, every implementation must be able to receive objects of at least these sizes, but must not send objects larger than these sizes. [...] recipients buffer The maximum total number of recipients that must be buffered is 100 recipients. As I read this, it means that a site must (actually its weaker than a MUST but stronger than a SHOULD) accept 100 RCPT in a single transaction syntactically, but I see nothing in there ruling out a policy of rejecting mail because it has more than N recipients where N may be < 100. > Ideally, if their limit is set to 10, then they should give 4xx SMTP response > codes after the first 10 RCPT TOs (not 5xx responses) and then your MTA > should be smart enough to send the message to just 10 Hotmail recipients > at a time. That would certainly be polite, but would only have a limited effect in blocking spam, since any MTA/spam engine would retry later on the 4xx's > If your MTA isn't smart enough to do that, then I believe that it qualifies > as being "broken". > > Note however that Hotmail was giving you 5xx (permanent) failure responses, > not 4xx (temporary) failure responses, I noted that, but thought that that still could be the consequence of some anti-spam mechanism. (I've come across sites that rejected mail with empty return paths as part of their anti-spam policies.) > >Or is this just a temporary failure, and not the consequence of a poorly > >designed anti-spam mechanism? > > I read something just the other day on some (Internet) industry news site > that said that Hotmail has been having some "technical difficulties" lately. > The problem you experienced may perhaps be related to that in some way. The 554 problem appeared to be temporary. Later messages went through just fine. -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg +44 (0)1234 750 111 x 2826 Cranfield Computer Centre FAX 751 814 J.Goldberg@Cranfield.ac.uk http://WWW.Cranfield.ac.uk/public/cc/cc047/ Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice. From list-managers-owner Tue Sep 7 00:51:06 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id AAA23262; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 00:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail3.svr.pol.co.uk (mail3.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.19]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id AAA23255 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 00:34:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-99.germanium.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.15.227] ident=cc047) by mail3.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11OFyb-0007Yz-00; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 08:47:38 +0100 Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 08:47:34 +0100 (BST) From: Jeffrey Goldberg X-Sender: cc047@localhost.localdomain Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg To: Chuq Von Rospach cc: "Ronald F. Guilmette" , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Max RCPTs [Was: Unexplained 554 from hotmail.com.] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Organization: Cranfield University Computer Centre MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > -- you are mistaken, > sir. As was I in my previous posting. While RFC821 is at best vague on the matter (my reading is that one can issue a 552 (excessive number of recipients) for any number although you must be able to "cope" with SMTP transaction involving at least 100 RCPTs. DRUMS however is very clear on the matter (and a rather interesting read all round). > See the section "recipients buffer" in the above URL, Ronald. (and > perhaps you ought to hang onto the URL, so you don't guess and give > out bad information next time) Ronald was not the only person giving out bad information. I was too. There is, of course, a question of the status for DRUMS. The document you quote says. INTERNET-DRAFT John C. Klensin, Editor Expires July 1999 February 26, 1999 [...] Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." So, technically, Ronald and I might have a case based on a reading of the vagueries of RFC821. However, since we all know that DRUMS will replace 821, and in this instance is clarifying something that was left vague in 821, I would agrue that people should be looking at DRUMS when configuring their MTAs. > it should return a 452 "too many recipients". They also allow for a > 5xx reply, using 500, 501 or 552. > > (isn't looking it up fun?) Point taken (even if it wasn't directed at me). I now have a local copy of DRUMS along with 821, 822, 1123 and many others to inspect before I start saying misleading things about the standards. So which is more fun: consititution law or interpreting Internet standards :-) -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg +44 (0)1234 750 111 x 2826 Cranfield Computer Centre FAX 751 814 J.Goldberg@Cranfield.ac.uk http://WWW.Cranfield.ac.uk/public/cc/cc047/ Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice. From list-managers-owner Tue Sep 7 02:05:02 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id CAA25189; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 02:00:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id CAA25136 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 02:00:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA25227; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 01:35:16 -0700 To: Chuq Von Rospach cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Unexplained 554 from hotmail.com. In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 06 Sep 1999 21:02:37 -0700. From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 01:35:16 -0700 Message-ID: <25225.936693316@monkeys.com> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , you wrote: >At 4:15 PM -0700 9/6/99, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > >>>Do you have a limit on the number of RCPTs in a single transaction? >> >> Doesn't everybody? > >No. > >>>(According to SMTP standards you should accept at least 100). >> >> I may be mistaken, but I believe that number is just a suggestion, and >> nor a requirement. > > -- you are mistaken, >sir. According to the latest draft of the standard update for RFC821, >a limitation of less than 100 RCPT-TO is a violation of the standard. >You must accept at least 100. If you limit beyond that, the >restriction has to be orderly (silently deleting mail or recipients >that goes over the limit is explicitly denied -- at one point, AOL >did that. I don't know if they still do, but that's against the >standards. > >See the section "recipients buffer" in the above URL, Ronald. (and >perhaps you ought to hang onto the URL, so you don't guess and give >out bad information next time) My dear Chuq, Regardless of whatever may be said in the draft replacement for RFC821, the fact of the matter is that a mail server _is_ allowed to give a 4xx response for any bloody RCPT TO to that it cares to provide that response to. I have one MTA on one of my systems set to give 4xx codes for all RCPT TOs after the first one. Can you connect to that and tell me (or anyone) definitively, whether you are getting 4xx responses to your second and subsequent RCPT TOs because I have too small of a RCPT TOs buffer or whether you get those responses only because my MTA just doesn't feel like accepting mail for the second and subsequent (requested) recipients right now? I don't believe that you can definitively tell the difference from the outside, one way or the other, so from the point of view of an external SMTP client, my MTA may well be within spec, even if it never gives a 2xx response for any second/subsequent RCPT TO. If pressed, I will claim that it IS within spec, and you, as an SMTP client, will NOT be able to disprove that assertion. P.S. This is NOT a hypothetical. I do indeed run Sendmail on one box with MaxRecipientsPerMessage configured to 1. P.P.S. Please don't YOU give out bad information next time. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- FREE Web Harvester Protection - http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ - Try it! -- FREE DynamicIP Spam Filtering - http://www.imrss.org/dssl/ - TELL YOUR ISP! From list-managers-owner Tue Sep 7 08:18:36 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA00442; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 07:34:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA00428 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 07:34:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197] (may be forged)) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA20416 ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 07:47:03 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <25225.936693316@monkeys.com> References: <25225.936693316@monkeys.com> Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 07:43:19 -0700 To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" , Chuq Von Rospach From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Unexplained 554 from hotmail.com. Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 1:35 AM -0700 9/7/99, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > P.S. This is NOT a hypothetical. I do indeed run Sendmail on one box > with MaxRecipientsPerMessage configured to 1. > > P.P.S. Please don't YOU give out bad information next time. then you are not conformant with the standards. which is your choice, but don't tell others it's okay. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + The Jedi that I admire most met up with Darth Maul and now he's toast... (Weird Al Yankovic - The Saga Begins) From list-managers-owner Tue Sep 7 08:48:36 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA01174; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 08:46:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.12.23]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id IAA01167 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 08:46:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 8733 invoked by uid 50); 7 Sep 1999 15:59:19 -0000 To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: "Ronald F. Guilmette" , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Unexplained 554 from hotmail.com. References: <8914.936659735@monkeys.com> From: Russ Allbery In-Reply-To: Chuq Von Rospach's message of "Mon, 6 Sep 1999 21:02:37 -0700" Date: 07 Sep 1999 08:59:19 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 32 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.66/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq Von Rospach writes: > -- you are mistaken, > sir. According to the latest draft of the standard update for RFC821, a > limitation of less than 100 RCPT-TO is a violation of the standard. You > must accept at least 100. If you limit beyond that, the restriction has > to be orderly (silently deleting mail or recipients that goes over the > limit is explicitly denied -- at one point, AOL did that. I don't know > if they still do, but that's against the standards. >From the standpoint of the SMTP *client*, this restriction is essentially meaningless, since of course the server is permitted to return a 4xx code to *any* RCPT command, and therefore the client has to handle it gracefully anyway. The provision of a "minimum maximum" of 100 recipients seems to me to be for "political" reasons of some sort, perhaps just to avoid changing a provision of RFC 821 but possibly to encourage MTA authors to handle the multiple recipient case. Setting a lower maximum will not cause interoperability problems (although the server may accept mail more slowly under some conditions). I see no reason why a site shouldn't feel comfortable with setting it lower as a matter of site policy. (On the other hand, I don't see off-hand much purpose served in doing so. Whatever help it may provide to slowing down outgoing spam is likely lost in the noise, most spammer software that I've run across doesn't use anywhere near 100 RCPTs anyway, and widespread lowering of the limit will just cause spammers to adjust their tools. But it's possible there's some factor that I'm missing.) -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From list-managers-owner Tue Sep 7 11:18:36 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA02774; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 11:04:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ma-1.rootsweb.com (ma-1.rootsweb.com [209.192.148.153]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA02767 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 11:04:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from twp@localhost) by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA05304; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 14:16:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 14:16:59 -0400 From: Tim Pierce To: Russ Allbery Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , "Ronald F. Guilmette" , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Unexplained 554 from hotmail.com. Message-ID: <19990907141659.H450@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <8914.936659735@monkeys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.7us In-Reply-To: Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 08:59:19AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > (On the other hand, I don't see off-hand much purpose served in doing so. > Whatever help it may provide to slowing down outgoing spam is likely lost > in the noise, most spammer software that I've run across doesn't use > anywhere near 100 RCPTs anyway, and widespread lowering of the limit will > just cause spammers to adjust their tools. But it's possible there's some > factor that I'm missing.) It's not so relevant with respect to spam, but is definitely relevant from a list administration perspective. We couldn't possibly accept mail with 100 recipients or more. On a busy list server, brainless crossposters would take us down in no time at all. We keep MaxRecipientsPerMessage set to 10 and are very happy. This may mean that we are not conformant with some of the standards, to which I say, oh well. It's been obvious for a long time that some of the standards we're trying so hard to follow are badly out of date with respect to current practices. We can't afford to run open relays any more, and can't afford to accept mail sent to thousands of recipients at once. -- Regards, Tim Pierce RootsWeb.com lead system admonsterator and Chief Hacking Officer From list-managers-owner Tue Sep 7 12:18:35 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA03507; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 12:12:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail9.svr.pol.co.uk (mail9.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.22]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA03500 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 12:12:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-106.radon.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.42.234] ident=cc047) by mail9.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11OQrW-000154-00; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 20:25:02 +0100 Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 20:24:58 +0100 (BST) From: Jeffrey Goldberg X-Sender: cc047@localhost.localdomain Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" cc: Chuq Von Rospach , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Unexplained 554 from hotmail.com. In-Reply-To: <25225.936693316@monkeys.com> Message-ID: Organization: Cranfield University Computer Centre MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > P.S. This is NOT a hypothetical. I do indeed run Sendmail on one box > with MaxRecipientsPerMessage configured to 1. >From the DRUMS SMTP-update document, section 4.5.3 The minimum total number of recipients that must be buffered is 100 recipients. Rejection of messages (for excessive recipients) with fewer than 100 RCPT TO commands is a violation of this specification. The general principle that relaying SMTP servers MUST NOT, and delivery SMTP servers SHOULD NOT, perform validation tests on message headers suggests that rejecting a message based on the total number of recipients shown in header fields is to be discouraged. I have a few problems with "the general principle that [...] delivery SMTP servers SHOULD NOT, perform validation tests on message headers". -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg +44 (0)1234 750 111 x 2826 Cranfield Computer Centre FAX 751 814 J.Goldberg@Cranfield.ac.uk http://WWW.Cranfield.ac.uk/public/cc/cc047/ Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice. From list-managers-owner Sat Sep 11 00:34:55 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id AAA29668; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 00:29:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail12.svr.pol.co.uk (mail12.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.215]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id AAA29661 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 00:29:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-99.sulfur.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.7.227] ident=cc047) by mail12.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11PhoW-0001Pz-00; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 08:43:13 +0100 Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 08:43:09 +0100 (BST) From: Jeffrey Goldberg X-Sender: cc047@localhost.localdomain Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg To: List Managers Mailing list , UK Mail Managers , postmaster@ic24.net cc: Trevor , owner-uk_roadrally@Cranfield.ac.uk Subject: FYI, problem with ic24.net emails (fwd) Message-ID: Organization: Cranfield University Computer Centre MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I'm forwarding a message that was sent to a list owner address that happens to include me. For those who don't know (those outside of the UK) ic24.net is a "new" ISP in the UK targetted at home dial-up users. I have not confirmed the report below, but if it is true, I suppose that most list managers will start disallowing subscriptions from ic24.net subscribers until ic24.net conforms to Internet mail standards. See http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/docs/email/badbounce.html for a description of why what ic24.net is accussed of doing is a very bad thing. -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg +44 (0)1234 750 111 x 2826 Cranfield Computer Centre FAX 751 814 J.Goldberg@Cranfield.ac.uk http://WWW.Cranfield.ac.uk/public/cc/cc047/ Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 10 Sep 99 11:03:53 +0100 From: Trevor To: "'owner-uk_roadrally@cranfield.ac.uk'" Subject: FYI, problem with ic24.net emails In case you are not already aware of this I thought I'd forward this to you There seems to be a big problem with the new ic24.net. The se7ens mailing list has had all messages repeated several times for the last day. It seems ic24 bounces to reply-to rather than return-path. All mails received from ic24.net have temporarily been banned from the se7ens list. Trevor. >From the listowner of the se7ens mailing list: > > Is anybody else getting the same messages repeated more than once ? >Found it! The problem is "ic24.net" which is (another) freebie account >currently on offer from petrol stations (managed, I believe, by Cable >and Wireless). It appears that when an ic24 account mailbox fills up - >it's relaying back to the 'reply-to' address and spoofing the original >senders email address!!! >the message comes from the users machine to their >provider and to our machine here at "sheddy.net". >Then, from the list manager (majordomo) to "sheddy.net" to >our relay server "relay1.mail.uk.psi.net" then to "smtp.ic24.net" >(running guess what?!) then from "smtp.ic24.net" back to >"sevens@se7ens.net"! >Who said the internet isn't a toy?! >I suppose you get what you pay for..... >Steve. >-------------------------------------------------------- >To stop receiving this list, mail "majordomo@se7ens.net" >with the line 'unsubscribe sevens' in the message BODY.