From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 10 17:13:01 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA01811; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:00:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA01734 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:00:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from alfaqnet.qnet.com.pe (alfaqnet.qnet.com.pe [200.37.231.132]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA12572 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:00:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from alpha500 ([200.37.231.137]) by alfaqnet.qnet.com.pe (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA22484 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:02:28 -0500 (GMT-0500) Message-ID: <00aa01bf2aed$ce5f96d0$89e725c8@alpha500.qnet.com.pe> From: "Soporte Tecnico de Qnet" To: Subject: problems with majordomo Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:05:42 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.3 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Dear Sirs : I was working with majordomo above weeks, but since I up-grade the sendmail to 8.9.3, when a user send message to the list (for this example "milista") the list's owner/maintainer receive the message : " The original message was received at Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:16:56 -0500 (GMT-0500) from majordom@localhost ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- milista-list :include:/usr/internet/majordomo/lists/milista (expanded from: milista-list) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- 550 :include:/usr/internet/majordomo/lists/milista... Cannot open /usr/internet/majordomo/lists/milista: Group writable directory 554 milista-list... aliasing/forwarding loop broken " I would want to know why ? and how to solve this problem ? Thank you for your replies. Best Regards. From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 10 17:29:26 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA01636; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:59:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id QAA01624 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:59:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from alfaqnet.qnet.com.pe (alfaqnet.qnet.com.pe [200.37.231.132]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA27311 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:32:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from alpha500 ([200.37.231.137]) by alfaqnet.qnet.com.pe (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA32614 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:33:39 -0500 (GMT-0500) Message-ID: <001301bf2a31$5f0dd790$89e725c8@alpha500.qnet.com.pe> From: "Soporte Tecnico de Qnet" To: Subject: problems with majordomo Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:36:52 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.3 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Dear Managers : I was working with majordomo above weeks, but since I up-grade the sendmail to 8.9.3, when a user send message to the list (for this example "milista") the list's owner/maintainer receive the message : " The original message was received at Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:16:56 -0500 (GMT-0500) from majordom@localhost ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- milista-list :include:/usr/internet/majordomo/lists/milista (expanded from: milista-list) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- 550 :include:/usr/internet/majordomo/lists/milista... Cannot open /usr/internet/majordomo/lists/milista: Group writable directory 554 milista-list... aliasing/forwarding loop broken " I would want to know why ? and how to solve this problem ? I am working on Digital Unix 4.0D on DEC Alpha. Thank you for your replies. Best Regards. Ernesto Freyre Soporte Tecnico Qnet From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 11 05:57:23 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA11239; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 05:46:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from ifolk.iserver.net (ifolk.iserver.net [192.41.44.203]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA11232 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 05:46:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from SOUTINE2K (adsl-151-202-20-126.bellatlantic.net [151.202.20.126]) by ifolk.iserver.net (8.8.5) id IAA09425; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 08:48:30 -0500 (EST) From: "Tom Neff" To: Subject: Re: problems with majordomo Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 08:48:38 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <199911110900.BAA06015@honor.greatcircle.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6400 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk "Soporte Tecnico de Qnet" wrote: > I was working with majordomo above weeks, but since I up-grade the sendmail > to 8.9.3, when a user send message to the list (for this example "milista") > the list's owner/maintainer receive the message : ... > /usr/internet/majordomo/lists/milista: Group writable directory This line is the key. Recent Sendmail releases implement strict security checking by default, inncluding various checks for unsafe file and directory permissions. From the Sendmail Release Notes: "8.9.0/8.9.0 98/05/19 SECURITY: To prevent users from reading files not normally readable, sendmail will no longer open forward, :include:, class, ErrorHeader, or HelpFile files located in unsafe (i.e. group or world writable) directory paths. Sites which need the ability to override security can use the DontBlameSendmail option. See the README file for more information." So either fix the directory permissions, or add the DontBlameSendmail option to sendmail.cf. If you are not the mail admin for youe system, pass this on to whoever is. From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 14 19:58:08 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA01955; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 19:51:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from grover.en.com (grover.en.com [204.89.181.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA01948 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 19:50:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from en.en.com (d16.as0.clev.oh.voyager.net [207.180.234.80]) by grover.en.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA23705 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 22:47:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199911150347.WAA23705@grover.en.com> X-Sender: lncnurse@mailback.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 23:26:59 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Nicole Marie Spring Subject: AOL Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Dear Listmates, I am receiving an increasing number of complaints from my aol.com subscribers that they are either not receiving email (33%) from my list or receiving only sporadic email. (66%) It has been confirmed that the email IS being delivered to aol.com. Non aol.com subscribers are NOT having this problem. Suggestions?? Sincerely, Nicole Marie Spring, RN Legal Nurse Consultants Listowner, LNCNURSE From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 14 22:29:28 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA03253; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 22:24:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from boofura.swcp.com (boofura.swcp.com [198.59.115.28]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA03246 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 22:24:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lazlo@localhost) by boofura.swcp.com (8.8.5/8.8.0) id XAA16076 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 23:27:40 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 23:27:40 -0700 From: Lazlo Nibble To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL Message-ID: <19991114232739.A16061@swcp.com> Mail-Followup-To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM References: <199911150347.WAA23705@grover.en.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i In-Reply-To: <199911150347.WAA23705@grover.en.com>; from Nicole Marie Spring on Sun, Nov 14, 1999 at 11:26:59PM -0500 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, Nov 14, 1999 at 11:26:59PM -0500, Nicole Marie Spring wrote: > I am receiving an increasing number of complaints from my aol.com > subscribers that they are either not receiving email (33%) from my list or > receiving only sporadic email. (66%) > > It has been confirmed that the email IS being delivered to > aol.com. > > Non aol.com subscribers are NOT having this problem. Non aol.com subscribers aren't subscribed to a service that sometimes intentionally drops mailing-list mail because it thinks it's spam... > Suggestions?? I understand that the best way to get this little problem to "work itself out" is for the subscribers to complain to AOL. -- Lazlo Nibble - lazlo@studio-nibble.com - http://www.studio-nibble.com -- From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 15 08:45:44 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA11334; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 08:32:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.xnet.com (quake.xnet.com [198.147.221.67]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA11327 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 08:32:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.243.156.212] (adamb.xnet.com [205.243.156.212]) by mail.xnet.com (8.9.3+Sun/XNet-3.0R) with SMTP id KAA14471 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 10:35:37 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199911151635.KAA14471@mail.xnet.com> Subject: Re: AOL Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 10:36:17 -0600 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Adam Bailey To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 11/14/99 10:26 PM, Nicole Marie Spring wrote... >I am receiving an increasing number of complaints from my aol.com >subscribers that they are either not receiving email (33%) from my list or >receiving only sporadic email. (66%) > >It has been confirmed that the email IS being delivered to >aol.com. > >Non aol.com subscribers are NOT having this problem. > >Suggestions?? Check your headers. AOL will drop messages that have faulty DNS or other header errors. -- Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois adamb@lull.org | Finger/Web for PGP adamkb@aol.com | http://www.lull.org/adam/ From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 15 10:08:40 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA11933; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 09:47:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.143.206.18]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA11926 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 09:47:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from tpad.squawk.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA18629; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 12:49:34 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991115114024.035de350@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 11:40:24 -0500 To: Nicole Marie Spring From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: AOL Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199911150347.WAA23705@grover.en.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:26 PM 11/14/99 -0500, Nicole Marie Spring wrote: >Dear Listmates, > >I am receiving an increasing number of complaints from my aol.com >subscribers that they are either not receiving email (33%) from my list or >receiving only sporadic email. (66%) > >It has been confirmed that the email IS being delivered to >aol.com. > >Non aol.com subscribers are NOT having this problem. > >Suggestions?? This is an AOL problem. Tell your list users to *ALL* contact AOL support directly, and offer to work with AOL support when they contact you. -- That which does not kill us, makes us stronger. That which does kill us makes us smell stronger, after a few days, anyway. Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice) mailto:njs@us.ibm.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 15 13:15:44 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA14598; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 13:09:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.143.206.18]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA14591 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 13:09:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from tpad.squawk.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA23670; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:12:03 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991115142619.03490400@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:26:19 -0500 To: Adam Bailey From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: AOL Cc: In-Reply-To: <199911151635.KAA14471@mail.xnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:36 AM 11/15/99 -0600, Adam Bailey wrote: >On 11/14/99 10:26 PM, Nicole Marie Spring > wrote... > >>I am receiving an increasing number of complaints from my aol.com >>subscribers that they are either not receiving email (33%) from my list or >>receiving only sporadic email. (66%) >> >>It has been confirmed that the email IS being delivered to >>aol.com. >> >>Non aol.com subscribers are NOT having this problem. >> >>Suggestions?? > >Check your headers. AOL will drop messages that have faulty DNS or other >header errors. In light of what was said, this reply makes little sense. Why would some get through and some not get through? Why would some su bscribers get some of the mail and others get none of it? Also, AOL is basically in complete violation of RFCs by not bouncing the mail to the RFC821 MAIL FROM address. They can get away with it, because they are big. I suspect, for private reasons, that AOL's e-mail system was designed by a moron studying to be an idiot. The only way they will fix it is if their subscribers complain. -- "I've got guns. I can't hit crap with them." - Howard Stern Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice) mailto:njs@us.ibm.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 15 15:27:05 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA15648; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:57:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA15641 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:57:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA19058 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:00:46 -0800 (PST) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:26:19 -0500. <3.0.5.32.19991115142619.03490400@127.0.0.1> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:00:46 -0800 Message-ID: <19056.942706846@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.5.32.19991115142619.03490400@127.0.0.1>, you wrote: >Also, AOL is basically in complete violation of RFCs by not bouncing the >mail to the RFC821 MAIL FROM address. They can get away with it, because >they are big. No, they can get away with it because there ain't no ``RFC police''. From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 15 16:00:45 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA16113; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:38:42 -0800 (PST) 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 PAA16106 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:38:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (from twp@localhost) by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA29890; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:40:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:40:49 -0500 From: Tim Pierce To: Nick Simicich Cc: Adam Bailey , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL Message-ID: <19991115184049.R11373@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <199911151635.KAA14471@mail.xnet.com> <3.0.5.32.19991115142619.03490400@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.7us In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19991115142619.03490400@127.0.0.1> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 02:26:19PM -0500, Nick Simicich wrote: > At 10:36 AM 11/15/99 -0600, Adam Bailey wrote: > >On 11/14/99 10:26 PM, Nicole Marie Spring > > wrote... > > > >>I am receiving an increasing number of complaints from my aol.com > >>subscribers that they are either not receiving email (33%) from my list or > >>receiving only sporadic email. (66%) > > > >Check your headers. AOL will drop messages that have faulty DNS or other > >header errors. > > In light of what was said, this reply makes little sense. Why would some > get through and some not get through? One possibility is if the recipient's mail server is rejecting the mail based on some headers that were not generated by the mailing list (which might include Message-ID, From, Date, or others, depending on the list software). Another possibility is if mail is being dropped due to some transient problem with the sender's domain, e.g. poor network connectivity to their DNS server. > Why would some su bscribers get some > of the mail and others get none of it? AOL subscribers have been known to turn on mail filters and then forget or misunderstand what's being filtered. That might be responsible here. -- Regards, Tim Pierce RootsWeb.com lead system admonsterator and Chief Hacking Officer From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 15 16:56:28 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA16825; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:37:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from tcp.com (tcp.com [207.126.126.64]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA16818 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:37:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by tcp.com (8.9.0/8.6.10) with ESMTP id QAA14374; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:40:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:40:43 -0800 (PST) From: James Lick To: Nick Simicich cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19991115142619.03490400@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Nick Simicich wrote: > Also, AOL is basically in complete violation of RFCs by not bouncing the > mail to the RFC821 MAIL FROM address. They can get away with it, because > they are big. Ironically, in the past AOL was screamed at for doing just what you suggest. When they got a mass spam from a forged address, all the bounces end up mailbombing some poor sap who happens to own the domain in question. Because AOL is very big and is considered a target rich environment by spammers, this means that AOL ends up bouncing a lot of mail in a very short time. ---- James Lick ---- jlick@drivel.com ---- http://drivel.com/ ---- From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 15 17:21:48 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA16835; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:38:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.xnet.com (quake.xnet.com [198.147.221.67]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA16828 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:38:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.243.156.212] (adamb.xnet.com [205.243.156.212]) by mail.xnet.com (8.9.3+Sun/XNet-3.0R) with SMTP id SAA00212 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:41:05 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199911160041.SAA00212@mail.xnet.com> Subject: Re: AOL Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:41:46 -0600 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Adam Bailey To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 11/15/99 1:26 PM, Nick Simicich wrote... >I suspect, for private reasons, that AOL's e-mail system was designed by a >moron studying to be an idiot. I chat occasionally with that very person. He's no moron. A moron would be hard-pressed to design a mail system that handles more email than any other in existence. The kinds of problems you're talking about are due to management, not design. Please be more careful before you levy accusations and insults at the people that you don't know. -- Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois adamb@lull.org | Finger/Web for PGP adamkb@aol.com | http://www.lull.org/adam/ From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 15 19:10:08 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA18348; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:43:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.143.206.18]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id SAA18341 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:43:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from tpad.squawk.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA31805 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:46:12 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991115204810.03e1e3b0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:48:10 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: AOL In-Reply-To: <19991115184049.R11373@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19991115142619.03490400@127.0.0.1> <199911151635.KAA14471@mail.xnet.com> <3.0.5.32.19991115142619.03490400@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 06:40 PM 11/15/99 -0500, Tim Pierce wrote: >On Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 02:26:19PM -0500, Nick Simicich wrote: >> At 10:36 AM 11/15/99 -0600, Adam Bailey wrote: >> >On 11/14/99 10:26 PM, Nicole Marie Spring >> > wrote... >> > >> >>I am receiving an increasing number of complaints from my aol.com >> >>subscribers that they are either not receiving email (33%) from my list or >> >>receiving only sporadic email. (66%) >> > >> >Check your headers. AOL will drop messages that have faulty DNS or other >> >header errors. >> >> In light of what was said, this reply makes little sense. Why would some >> get through and some not get through? > >One possibility is if the recipient's mail server is rejecting the >mail based on some headers that were not generated by the mailing >list (which might include Message-ID, From, Date, or others, >depending on the list software). If the mail is all being sent from the same system, these headers are generally similar. >Another possibility is if mail is being dropped due to some transient >problem with the sender's domain, e.g. poor network connectivity to >their DNS server. Then AOL is badly broken, and their members should complain. >> Why would some su bscribers get some >> of the mail and others get none of it? > >AOL subscribers have been known to turn on mail filters and then >forget or misunderstand what's being filtered. That might >be responsible here. When people have filtered my list mail, AOL does send bounces. The most famous is "X is not accepting mail with attachments" when the mail has no attachment in it. I've also gotten "This sender is not accepting mail from this origin." I suspect that AOL's mail servers are randomly dropping mail on the floor when overloaded because of some unforseen interaction with their anti-spam procedures and that it has nothing to do with the mail itself. -- That which does not kill us, makes us stronger. That which does kill us makes us smell stronger, after a few days, anyway. Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice) mailto:njs@us.ibm.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 15 19:39:40 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA18769; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:12:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.xnet.com (quake.xnet.com [198.147.221.67]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA18762 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:12:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.243.156.212] (adamb.xnet.com [205.243.156.212]) by mail.xnet.com (8.9.3+Sun/XNet-3.0R) with SMTP id VAA06389 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:15:28 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199911160315.VAA06389@mail.xnet.com> Subject: Re: AOL Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:16:09 -0600 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Adam Bailey To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 11/15/99 6:40 PM, James Lick wrote... >On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Nick Simicich wrote: >> Also, AOL is basically in complete violation of RFCs by not bouncing the >> mail to the RFC821 MAIL FROM address. They can get away with it, because >> they are big. > >Ironically, in the past AOL was screamed at for doing just what you >suggest. When they got a mass spam from a forged address, all the bounces >end up mailbombing some poor sap who happens to own the domain in >question. Because AOL is very big and is considered a target rich >environment by spammers, this means that AOL ends up bouncing a lot of >mail in a very short time. You're right, I had forgotten about that. Didn't CyberPromo try to sue AOL claiming the massive bounces were a Denial of Service attack? -- Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois adamb@lull.org | Finger/Web for PGP adamkb@aol.com | http://www.lull.org/adam/ From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 15 20:24:39 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA19267; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:05:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.143.206.18]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA19254 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:05:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from tpad.squawk.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA01074; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:08:02 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991115225928.03bdb100@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:59:28 -0500 To: Adam Bailey From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: AOL Cc: In-Reply-To: <199911160041.SAA00212@mail.xnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hmmm....let's me clear about this. Is this the guy who came from IBM, who worked on the VM SMTP system? I detest him so much that I've put his name out of my mind. Sat on this for an hour and it came to me - Matt Korn? I've also seen him quoted as a "speaker" for AOL. At 06:41 PM 11/15/99 -0600, Adam Bailey wrote: >On 11/15/99 1:26 PM, Nick Simicich wrote... > >>I suspect, for private reasons, that AOL's e-mail system was designed by a >>moron studying to be an idiot. > >I chat occasionally with that very person. He's no moron. A moron would >be hard-pressed to design a mail system that handles more email than any >other in existence. While mishandling a significant percentage of it. Dropping it on the floor is one way of "handling" it. It is not a good way. Misidentifying mail as containing attachments when it does not is another fine example of mishandling. >The kinds of problems you're talking about are due to management, not >design. Please be more careful before you levy accusations and insults at >the people that you don't know. Management made the decision to design a spam catcher that throws mail away? I guess.....Management made the decision to parse mail incorrectly? I doubt it. -- Do you have 10 years experience? Or one month's experience repeated 120 times? Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice) mailto:njs@us.ibm.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 15 21:09:38 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA19582; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:55:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA19573 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:55:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA19862; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:58:02 -0800 (PST) To: Adam Bailey cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:16:09 -0600. <199911160315.VAA06389@mail.xnet.com> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:58:02 -0800 Message-ID: <19860.942728282@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <199911160315.VAA06389@mail.xnet.com>, you wrote: >You're right, I had forgotten about that. Didn't CyberPromo try to sue >AOL claiming the massive bounces were a Denial of Service attack? Yes. Something like that. (Actually, in that case, CyberPromo may have had a point. There was some suggestion at the time that AOL *saved up* all of the bounces from all of CyberPromo's spam run(s) and then unleashed it all on CyberPromo's ISPs all at once, thus taking their servers down rather effectively. Moral of the story: Don't even try to fight a bandwidth war with AOL... You'll lose.) From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 15 21:54:38 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA19949; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:38:17 -0800 (PST) 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 VAA19942 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:38:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from twp@localhost) by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA36779; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 00:41:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 00:41:09 -0500 From: Tim Pierce To: Nick Simicich Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL Message-ID: <19991116004109.V11373@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19991115142619.03490400@127.0.0.1> <199911151635.KAA14471@mail.xnet.com> <3.0.5.32.19991115142619.03490400@127.0.0.1> <19991115184049.R11373@ma-1.rootsweb.com> <3.0.5.32.19991115204810.03e1e3b0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.7us In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19991115204810.03e1e3b0@127.0.0.1> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 08:48:10PM -0500, Nick Simicich wrote: > At 06:40 PM 11/15/99 -0500, Tim Pierce wrote: > >One possibility is if the recipient's mail server is rejecting the > >mail based on some headers that were not generated by the mailing > >list (which might include Message-ID, From, Date, or others, > >depending on the list software). > > If the mail is all being sent from the same system, these headers are > generally similar. Er, the "From" headers are definitely not similar to each other, at least if the posts all come from different people. As for the others, it depends on your list software. For example, I know that SmartList preserves Message-ID, and it looks as if Majordomo does as well. > >Another possibility is if mail is being dropped due to some transient > >problem with the sender's domain, e.g. poor network connectivity to > >their DNS server. > > Then AOL is badly broken, and their members should complain. It might also be the sender's domain that is badly broken. From our perspective it is hard to tell. At any rate, I think we are generally in agreement that if the listmaster can prove that the mail was delivered to AOL, that it is out of her hands and the AOL user should complain to their tech support contacts. But for the record, as an external mail admin I have not found AOL's mail systems to cause nearly as much trouble as, say, Prodigy or iName or CompuServe (with their forwarding and aliasing nightmares), or penny-ante BBS systems that aren't really ready to play with the big boys. Considering that AOL represents about 15-20% of our recipients, that is really an extraordinary achievement. I would really be very happy if the rest of the world ran as smoothly as AOL. -- Regards, Tim Pierce RootsWeb.com lead system admonsterator and Chief Hacking Officer From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 04:59:40 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id EAA27023; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 04:54:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mercury.rev.net (mercury.rev.net [206.67.68.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id EAA27016 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 04:54:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from bernie.rev.net (admin2.rev.net [12.26.100.205]) by mercury.rev.net (8.10.0.Beta6/8.10.0.Beta6) with ESMTP id dAGCvtg24471 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:57:55 -0500 Message-Id: <199911161257.dAGCvtg24471@mercury.rev.net> From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:59:05 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: AOL Reply-to: bernie@fantasyfarm.com In-reply-to: <3.0.5.32.19991115142619.03490400@127.0.0.1> References: <199911151635.KAA14471@mail.xnet.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 15 Nov 99, at 14:26, Nick Simicich wrote: > Also, AOL is basically in complete violation of RFCs by not bouncing the > mail to the RFC821 MAIL FROM address. They can get away with it, because > they are big. Actually, "roll your own" is done by a *LOT* of hosts/servers these days. I've chatted with several [often with me being outraged over some offense or another, exactly of this type] and they just say that the RFCs never anticipated the kind of volumes that are reality today, and they certainly never anticipated the hostile envionrment that is reality today. In order to *survive* and deal with it at all, they've had to improvise a bit, hopefully in the spirit of the protocols and in anticipation of 'official' sanctioning in future versions of the protocol [when/if anything ever gets revised]... but now is now and they have to cope. in a case like this (bouncing), I'd be that they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. Because of the volumes they have to deal with, *nothing* that they do is going to be 'right' and make everyone happy. > I suspect, for private reasons, that AOL's e-mail system was designed by a > moron studying to be an idiot. Really? I've designed systems like this and I am *constantly* in awe of the folks at AOL who designed [and run] their email system. I cannot *conceive* of how I'd handle the authentication/delivery/retrieval/forwarding/filtering machinery for a mail server that has to handle 14 million [or more with aliases and such] email addresses and mailboxes, and god knows how much actual email each day. No slight intended, but I can't help but think that anyone who thinks that AOL's mail-handling problems are even tractable [much less "simple"] just doesn't really understand the problem... /bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 07:45:29 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA28694; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:30:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from bigtime.blank.org (bigtime.blank.org [139.167.64.222]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id HAA28684 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:30:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 11941 invoked by uid 500); 16 Nov 1999 15:33:13 -0000 Message-ID: <19991116103313.O566@blank.org> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:33:13 -0500 From: "Nathan J. Mehl" To: James Lick , Nick Simicich Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL References: <3.0.5.32.19991115142619.03490400@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: ; from James Lick on Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 04:40:43PM -0800 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In the immortal words of James Lick (jlick@drivel.com): > > Ironically, in the past AOL was screamed at for doing just what you > suggest. When they got a mass spam from a forged address, all the bounces > end up mailbombing some poor sap who happens to own the domain in > question. Having been on the receiving end of that very attack, allow me to personally confirm that that was in fact the case, and be the first to commend AOL for adopting a lower-profile bounce-handling procedure. -n ------------------------------------------------------------ "You don't qualify as the typical male snakebite victim: you weren't drinking, you don't have any tattoos, and you have all your teeth." ------------------------------------------------ From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 09:30:17 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA29971; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 09:18:49 -0800 (PST) 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 JAA29964 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 09:18:38 -0800 (PST) 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 11nmIU-0003NA-00; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:21:39 +0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:21:37 +0000 (GMT) From: Jeffrey Goldberg X-Sender: cc047@neumann.ccc.cranfield.ac.uk Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg To: abuse@mpx.com.au cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com, postmaster@Cranfield.ac.uk Subject: Blocking bad attack out of mpx.com.au 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 Someone (or their 'bot) is spamming majordomo based lists forging the addresses of legitimate subscribers. Below is one instance (not a list managed at Cranfield, but one that I am a member of). I have heard unconfirmed reports that other lists have been similarly hit, but have not yet confirmed that those were also out of mpx.com.au Nonetheless, I am blocking all mail to Cranfield.ac.uk from mpx.com.au (except to abuse or postmaster) as a preventative measure, until I hear from mpx or learn that the problem is resolved. -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 ---------- Return-path: Envelope-to: J.Goldberg@cranfield.ac.uk Delivery-date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 15:58:48 +0000 Received: from bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.37] ident=exim) by euler.central.cranfield.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11nl0J-00018B-00 for J.Goldberg@cranfield.ac.uk; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 15:58:47 +0000 Received: from majordom by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with local (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11nku9-0003CC-00 for ukcrypto-outgoing@bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 15:52:25 +0000 Received: from local2.mpx.com.au ([203.29.192.98] helo=mailarray.mpx.com.au) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11nku2-0003Bz-00 for ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 15:52:24 +0000 Received: from ---(really [198.142.239.33]) by mailarray.mpx.com.au via smtpd with smtp id for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 02:50:43 +1100 (/\##/\ Smail3.1.30.13.Y2K #30.35 built 1-mar-01) Message-Id: Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 02:50:43 +1100 To: ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk From: rjb@pierconsulting.com Subject: hey wassup uKCrypto ;) Sender: owner-ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk here is the site you wanted... http://SEX.Interactwithme.com it's the one that gives you free membership access (all hacked) to abotu 300 membership based sex sites. k bye... ps: why r u using maillist.ox.ac.uk now? it doens't make sence, anyway *bye*... From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 10:08:05 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA00446; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 09:52:06 -0800 (PST) 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 JAA00435 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 09:51:58 -0800 (PST) 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 11nmop-0006eD-00; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:55:03 +0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:55:01 +0000 (GMT) From: Jeffrey Goldberg X-Sender: cc047@neumann.ccc.cranfield.ac.uk Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg To: jah@alien.bt.co.uk cc: owner-ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk, owner-cypherpunks@cyberpass.net, list-managers@greatcircle.com, abuse@mpx.com.au Subject: Re: Wassup spam [was Re: hey wassup uKCrypto ;)] 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 Tue, 16 Nov 1999 jah@alien.bt.co.uk wrote: > On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > > [...] Do you have full headers of the bot's mailings? > > > > Are they all from the same network, mpx.net.au? > > All the ones I have here are. Now the next question: Are all the hit lists majordomo lists? > I must admit I blindly deleted a whole pile of them before I started > to find them interesting. I understand. As, I've said, Cranfield.ac.uk now blocks mail from mpx.com.au (at some local cost, as we get legit mail from their users). This is a preventative measure. Cranfield lists have not been hit yet AFAIK. > I've have asked others for more samples. > I am starting to think it is remarkably restrained for a bot though! > > Headers at the bottom. Thanks. PS: the cypherpunks list owner should check the majordomo FAQ to learn how to conceal the outgoing alias. > >From bill.stewart@pobox.com Tue Nov 16 17:23:36 1999 > Return-Path: > Received: from dent.axion.bt.co.uk(really [132.146.16.161]) by > mail.alien.bt.co.uk > via sendmail with esmtp > id > for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:44:43 +0000 (GMT) > (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #4 built 1999-Oct-11) > Received: from sirius.infonex.com by dent with Internet with SMTP; > Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:28:19 +0000 > Received: (from majordom@localhost) by sirius.infonex.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) > id HAA06760 [...] > Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:52:49 -0800 (PST) > Received: (from cpunks@localhost) by sirius.infonex.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) > id HAA06708 for cypherpunks@infonex.com; > Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:52:14 -0800 (PST) > Received: from cyberpass.net (cyberpass.net [209.75.197.3]) > by sirius.infonex.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA06689 > for ; > Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:51:54 -0800 (PST) > Received: from mailarray.mpx.com.au (local2.mpx.com.au [203.29.192.98]) > by cyberpass.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA21330 > for ; > Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:55:23 -0800 (PST) > From: bill.stewart@pobox.com > Received: from ---(really [198.142.239.33]) by mailarray.mpx.com.au via smtpd > with smtp id > for ; > Wed, > 17 Nov 1999 02:51:49 +1100 (/\##/\ Smail3.1.30.13.Y2K #30.35 built > 1-mar-01) > Message-Id: > Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 02:51:49 +1100 > To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net > Subject: hey wassup CypHErpunKs ;) > Sender: owner-cypherpunks@cyberpass.net > Precedence: first-class > Reply-To: bill.stewart@pobox.com > X-List: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net > X-Loop: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net -- 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 Nov 16 10:29:01 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA00756; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:13:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from celery.n.ml.org (reedd.stu.rpi.edu [128.113.199.69]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id KAA00744 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:13:01 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 15835 invoked by uid 1000); 16 Nov 1999 18:16:03 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Nov 1999 18:16:03 -0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:16:03 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Reed To: "Nathan J. Mehl" cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL In-Reply-To: <19991116103313.O566@blank.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Nathan J. Mehl wrote: ) In the immortal words of James Lick (jlick@drivel.com): ) > Ironically, in the past AOL was screamed at for doing just what you ) > suggest. When they got a mass spam from a forged address, all the bounces ) > end up mailbombing some poor sap who happens to own the domain in ) > question. ) Having been on the receiving end of that very attack, allow me to ) personally confirm that that was in fact the case, and be the first to ) commend AOL for adopting a lower-profile bounce-handling procedure. Well, receiving end of one of those incidents mayhaps. This happened as well to Monolith (ml.org) about a year ago, where overnight the mailbox filled up with several dozen thousand bounced bounces from AOL targetted for and and other bogus addresses. It was decidedly not fun, though we never even contacted AOL about the "problem" since it wasn't at their end. I would much rather the actual network abusers be caught, arrested, and beat with a fresh trout or two (or three) than have to go around "fixing" these types of "problems" with destructive measures, such as silently dropping bounced mail, and even going back to having to close all of the public relays on the net--I really miss mail.uu.net. -- Daniel Reed Drugs have taught an entire generation of American kids the metric system. From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 11:58:13 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA01787; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 11:51:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from quasar.dimensional.com (quasar.dimensional.com [206.124.0.15]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA01779 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 11:51:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from uxledkvk (p31.3c07.pm.dimcom.net [206.124.5.95]) by quasar.dimensional.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA24763 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:54:39 -0700 (MST) From: "Theodore M. Smith" To: Subject: What the happy hell is "Propagation Networks"? Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:51:46 -0700 Message-ID: <000301bf306c$03aaf540$58057cce@uxledkvk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Pardon me for posting a question that is not related to mailing lists as such, but I felt a number of you must have expertise on this subject. In addition to a mailing list I also run a website which is fairly heavily trafficked. It contains a message board. In the last twenty-four hours I have started getting emails from something called "Propagation Networks" (one URL for it is http://propagation.net/). The email simply notifies that _I_ have posted a message on my own message board, or that someone else has posted a message replying to one of mine. I never asked for this service. It does appear to be free of advertising, at least. I don't know if only I as "owner" of the site get these announcements, or if other users do, at least if they have posted email addresses on my site. I'm posting a message right now to ask if anyone else is getting the announcements. What can anyone tell me about this thing? Should I like it, because if others get the same message it may boost traffic? Or should I hate it, because it's going to annoy users? Are there any considerations I'm overlooking? Thanks in advance for any information. Ted Smith Denver From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 12:13:33 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA01991; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:02:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from celery.n.ml.org (reedd.stu.rpi.edu [128.113.199.69]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id MAA01984 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:02:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 21503 invoked by uid 1000); 16 Nov 1999 20:05:51 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Nov 1999 20:05:51 -0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 15:05:50 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Reed To: Jeffrey Goldberg cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com, abuse@mpx.com.au Subject: Re: Wassup spam [was Re: hey wassup uKCrypto ;)] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: ) On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 jah@alien.bt.co.uk wrote: ) > On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: ) > > [...] Do you have full headers of the bot's mailings? ) > > Are they all from the same network, mpx.net.au? ) > All the ones I have here are. ) Now the next question: Are all the hit lists majordomo lists? No. An email to the long-dead, ezmlm-managed mailing list was forged from my address. Since no longer exists, the message bounced back to me. I also, personally, got the same message sent directly to my address with a From: Pine.LNX.3.96.980323165716.13653C-100000@narnia.n.ml.org (the Message-ID of a message I presumably sent to the systalk mailing list a year ago, according to the timestamp in the ID). Note that this is the second time it's happened, the first message read: [...] ] From: Pine.LNX.3.96.980323165716.13653C-100000@narnia.n.ml.org ] Sender: Pine.LNX.3.96.980323165716.13653C-100000@narnia.n.ml.org ] Received: from ggg (mel-0401-022.ports.iprimus.com.au [203.134.52.22]) ] by spdmraaa.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.0) with SMTP id ] BAA21601 ] for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 01:03:16 -0500 (EST) ] Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 01:03:16 -0500 (EST) ] Message-Id: <199911040603.BAA21601@spdmraaa.compuserve.com> ] To: djr@narnia.n.ml.org ] Reply-To: Pine.LNX.3.96.980323165716.13653C-100000@narnia.n.ml.org ] Subject: hey wassup DJr ;) ] ] Hey yaw, you not gonna beleive this yo. I found this place that gives ya access to like soooooo many hacked membership based sex/xxx sites for free man, no shit!! ] ] Anyway, the secret address is http://SEX.Interactwithme.com ok? You jsut go there, and you get secret membership access, for free, too about (i think) 350 different sites. ] ] when i see ya at school tomorrow, make sure you bring the damn bio sheets ok? btw, wtf r u doing using narnia.n.ml.org anyway?? wtf is up with that yaw, waj ya chage your addy again? newayz, later... im off to that http://SEX.interactwithme.com site again ;), catcha in class tommorow. -- Daniel Reed Linux - the choice of a GNU generation From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 12:58:46 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA02613; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:45:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from godai.maison-otaku.net (godai.maison-otaku.net [216.122.4.241]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA02606 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:45:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (loki@localhost) by godai.maison-otaku.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA02354; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:47:58 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: godai.maison-otaku.net: loki owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:47:58 -0800 (PST) From: Jeremy Blackman To: Jeffrey Goldberg cc: abuse@mpx.com.au, list-managers@greatcircle.com, postmaster@Cranfield.ac.uk Subject: Re: Blocking bad attack out of mpx.com.au In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > Someone (or their 'bot) is spamming majordomo based lists forging the > addresses of legitimate subscribers. I've seen this particular attack as well, on both my domains. It's not spamming just lists, it's apparently spamming any address it was able to harvest from the 'net, as I've had the messages arrive to my personal mailbox. It's a (rather pathetic) attempt to make the message appear to be coming from a user who mis-mailed someone, I think. It appears to just always take addresses its seen in similar situations (e.g. both addresses appeared on the same webpage) and use them; thus how it ends up forging to a mailing list. :/ -- Jeremy Blackman - loki@maison-otaku.net / loki@listar.org / jeremy@lith.com Lithtech Team, Monolith Productions -- http://www.lith.com Listar Developer -- http://www.listar.org From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 14:13:18 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA03681; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:04:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from FSM-1.PICA.ARMY.MIL (fsm-1.pica.army.mil [129.139.96.87]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id OAA03674 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:04:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 99 17:10:13 EST From: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Blocking bad attack out of mpx.com.au Message-ID: <9911161710.aa22086@fsm-1.fsm-1.pica.army.mil> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Someone (or their 'bot) is spamming majordomo based lists forging the >addresses of legitimate subscribers. > >I have heard unconfirmed reports that other lists have been similarly hit, >but have not yet confirmed that those were also out of mpx.com.au > >Nonetheless, I am blocking all mail to Cranfield.ac.uk from mpx.com.au >(except to abuse or postmaster) as a preventative measure, until I hear >from mpx or learn that the problem is resolved. Yep. The BMW motorcycle list (which I admin, but not from here) got tagged last week (or maybe the week before, I forget). Came thru compuserve.com in that case. Tom Coradeschi, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer http://labview.pica.army.mil/ From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 14:28:12 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA03612; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:00:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.143.206.18]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA03570 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:00:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from tpad.squawk.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA03480 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:03:12 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991116120848.0337b100@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:08:48 -0500 To: From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: AOL In-Reply-To: <199911160315.VAA06389@mail.xnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 09:16 PM 11/15/99 -0600, Adam Bailey wrote: >On 11/15/99 6:40 PM, James Lick wrote... >>On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Nick Simicich wrote: >>> Also, AOL is basically in complete violation of RFCs by not bouncing the >>> mail to the RFC821 MAIL FROM address. They can get away with it, because >>> they are big. >> >>Ironically, in the past AOL was screamed at for doing just what you >>suggest. When they got a mass spam from a forged address, all the bounces >>end up mailbombing some poor sap who happens to own the domain in >>question. Because AOL is very big and is considered a target rich >>environment by spammers, this means that AOL ends up bouncing a lot of >>mail in a very short time. > >You're right, I had forgotten about that. Didn't CyberPromo try to sue >AOL claiming the massive bounces were a Denial of Service attack? Somone told me last night that the person who designed the mail system for AOL was not an idiot studying to be a moron, but a real smart fellow. I would think that a smart fellow would have added something to bounce handling looking for bounce rates and only inhibiting bounces to sites or addresses when the bounce rate exceeded some reasonable threshold, such that there were obvious problems rather than dumping one-off bounces on the floor. The CyberPromo case was AOL holding all of the bounces sent from forged RFC8221 addresses and correctly (IMHO) vectoring them back to CyberPromo (the actual origin), not bouncing to the RFC821 MAIL FROM address. This was an intentional act under AOL's control and not them simply following standard procedures, and I believe that a reasonable person would not find that one related to the other. The reality is that AOL is the only big mail sink following these procedures (or at least the only one I know of and the only one that anyone complains about on this list). Everyone has occasional glitches. AOL has a mail system designed to use secret criteria to throw mail on the floor, maybe, or maybe their mail system is just badly broken. No one knows for sure, and frankly, I don't put much credibility in any public announcement that AOL makes either formally or informally. Because this stuff is all secret, the list owners are the ones who take the heat. Yes, I think this is AOL bashing. But I think it is for cause. They have some serious problems that affect their customer's service, and they show no interest in fixing them. -- We will fight for bovine freedom, And hold our large heads high. We will run free, with the buffalo or die! Cows with Guns. - Dana Lyons, Cows With Guns Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice) mailto:njs@us.ibm.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 14:58:16 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA03960; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:42:14 -0800 (PST) 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 OAA03953 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:42:05 -0800 (PST) Received: (from twp@localhost) by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA44004; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:44:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:44:57 -0500 From: Tim Pierce To: Daniel Reed Cc: Jeffrey Goldberg , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, abuse@mpx.com.au Subject: Re: Wassup spam [was Re: hey wassup uKCrypto ;)] Message-ID: <19991116174457.X11373@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: 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, Nov 16, 1999 at 03:05:50PM -0500, Daniel Reed wrote: > On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > ) On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 jah@alien.bt.co.uk wrote: > ) > On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > ) > > [...] Do you have full headers of the bot's mailings? > ) > > Are they all from the same network, mpx.net.au? > ) > All the ones I have here are. > ) Now the next question: Are all the hit lists majordomo lists? > No. An email to the long-dead, ezmlm-managed mailing list > was forged from my address. Not just our (SmartList) lists, but many of our individual users were hit directly with this as well. It seems like they used an ordinary robot to scrape addresses off the Web, and then used the Nth address on the list to send the N+1th spam to each user, so that the sender and receiver would look vaguely familiar to each other. Ingeniously diabolical. -- Regards, Tim Pierce RootsWeb.com lead system admonsterator and Chief Hacking Officer From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 15:13:13 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA04053; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:57:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.143.206.18]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA04046 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:57:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from tpad.squawk.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA04721; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 18:00:31 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991116180024.0520d700@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 18:00:24 -0500 To: bernie@fantasyfarm.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: AOL Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I don't care how many millions of pieces of mail that they handle in a half assed fashion. It is much easier to design a "lossy" sytem than a reliable one. >No slight intended, but I can't help but think that anyone who thinks >that AOL's mail-handling problems are even tractable [much less "simple"] >just doesn't really understand the problem... If AOL has "intractable" mail handling problems, then they are defrauding their customers by claiming to handle their mail, right? Either they are outright frauds (once again, they have oversold their capacity) or they have not oversold their capacity and have simply designed poorly. I personally believe that they have the capacity, and that they just have an ill-thought out system. Yep, there are a lot of people doing things that just plain violate the RFCs and the world has changed. But, given all that: is there anyone else who is selling ISP access who is, by policy, randomly throwing mailing list mail on the ground without returning it? I've been following this list for a fair while. AOL is the *only* company that repeatedly comes up with some poor listowner saying "they are randomly trashing my mailing list mail and not bothering to return it". Over and over again. I have no respect for a company, when that company provides an unreliable service, especially when they provide it by design. I hold to my original position. The number of pieces of mail that they handle poorly simply does not impress me. My opinion of anyone who sells a service they know to be broken is expressed above. -- That which does not kill us, makes us stronger. That which does kill us makes us smell stronger, after a few days, anyway. Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice) mailto:njs@us.ibm.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 16:28:31 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA04788; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:12:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA04781 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:12:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from (A17-216-27-161.apple.com [17.216.27.161]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA54816 ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:07:31 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19991116120848.0337b100@127.0.0.1> References: <3.0.5.32.19991116120848.0337b100@127.0.0.1> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:05:43 -0800 To: Nick Simicich , From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: AOL Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:08 PM -0500 11/16/99, Nick Simicich wrote: > Yes, I think this is AOL bashing. But I think it is for cause. You're half right. -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) What was that? French horns... From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 16:53:38 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA05023; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:38:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA05003 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:38:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA00581; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:41:32 -0800 (PST) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, abuse@mpx.com.au Subject: Re: Wassup spam [was Re: hey wassup uKCrypto ;)] In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:44:57 -0500. <19991116174457.X11373@ma-1.rootsweb.com> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:41:32 -0800 Message-ID: <579.942799292@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <19991116174457.X11373@ma-1.rootsweb.com>, Tim Pierce wrote: >Not just our (SmartList) lists, but many of our individual users >were hit directly with this as well. The `wassup' spammer has been hitting my spam traps for at least several weeks now. From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 20:01:14 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA06726; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 19:47:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from grover.en.com (grover.en.com [204.89.181.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA06719 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 19:47:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from en.en.com (d257.as0.clev.oh.voyager.net [207.180.235.65]) by grover.en.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA22398 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 22:44:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199911170344.WAA22398@grover.en.com> X-Sender: lncnurse@mailback.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 23:49:55 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Nicole Marie Spring Subject: Fwd: Re: AOL Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk < I would think that a smart fellow would have added something to bounce >handling looking for bounce rates and only inhibiting bounces to sites or >addresses when the bounce rate exceeded some reasonable threshold, such >that there were obvious problems rather than dumping one-off bounces on the >floor. I may be out of my league here :-) Like maybe not up to techno speed. :-( I have received verification that email is being delivered to the ISP. Subscribers continue to email me that they are not receiving their email. However, I have never received any bounce messages other than the occasional 'full mailbox'. These 'full mailbox' subscribers are NOT the ones complaining and emailing me in regards to the present non-receipt of email problems. > AOL has a mail system designed to use secret criteria to throw mail on the floor, >maybe, or maybe their mail system is just badly broken. No one knows for >sure, and frankly, I don't put much credibility in any public announcement >that AOL makes either formally or informally. Because this stuff is all >secret, the list owners are the ones who take the heat. Thanks...that assists me in understanding why this has been such a difficult problem to solve. It also helps me deal with the 'heat in the kitchen' so to speak. >Yes, I think this is AOL bashing. Actually I beg to differ. It is not AOL bashing. It is speaking about an issue that is occurring. That is, subscribers from a specific ISP are either receiving no email or sporadic email. It just happens that the ISP involved is AOL. That's the reality. Not bashing anyone. IMHO, imperative to recognize, identify, own and fix one's problems. Especially when one is providing a service for a fee. PS. Listmates, I have appreciated your input and dialog on this issue. It has assisted me in problem solving. I am grateful for the time that you have spent responding to this issue. PPS. AOL has contacted me. I would hope that the problem can be brought to a quick resolution. In the meantime, I value the dialog on this topic from each of you. I will post a final chapter summary at a later date. With much gratitude, Nicole Marie Spring, RN Listowner, LNCNURSE From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 17 16:05:32 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA21158; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:42:51 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id PAA21144 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:42:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from oxmail.ox.ac.uk (oxmail3.ox.ac.uk [163.1.2.9]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA04468 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 15:31:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from ermine.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.13]) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 11ns11-0006oh-00; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 23:27:59 +0000 Received: from whgu0007 (helo=localhost) by ermine.ox.ac.uk with local-smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11ns10-0005aE-00; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 23:27:58 +0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 23:27:58 +0000 (GMT) From: Ian Goodyer To: Jeffrey Goldberg cc: jah@alien.bt.co.uk, owner-ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk, owner-cypherpunks@cyberpass.net, list-managers@greatcircle.com, abuse@mpx.com.au Subject: Re: Wassup spam [was Re: hey wassup uKCrypto ;)] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > > > [...] Do you have full headers of the bot's mailings? > > > > > > Are they all from the same network, mpx.net.au? This appears to be true here too. > > All the ones I have here are. > > Now the next question: Are all the hit lists majordomo lists? No. Yaman Akdeniz said he has received no less than three of these message to his personal email address. From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 17 16:15:07 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA21112; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:42:34 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id PAA21102 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:42:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from liv-26.outlawnet.com (as1-100.dial-IP.EmpireNet.net [208.44.71.100]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id KAA01023 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:42:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by liv-26.outlawnet.com (NX5.67e/NX3.0M) id AA00375; Tue, 16 Nov 99 10:41:31 -0800 Message-Id: <9911161841.AA00375@liv-26.outlawnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain Mime-Version: 1.0 (NeXT Mail 3.3 v118.2) Received: by NeXT.Mailer (1.118.2) From: garyb@fxt.com Date: Tue, 16 Nov 99 10:41:30 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL References: <199911160900.BAA21798@honor.greatcircle.com> Reply-To: garyb@fxt.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Nick Simicich wrote: > > Also, AOL is basically in complete violation of RFCs by not bouncing the > > mail to the RFC821 MAIL FROM address. They can get away with it, because > > they are big. > Ironically, in the past AOL was screamed at for doing just what you > suggest. When they got a mass spam from a forged address, all the bounces > end up mailbombing some poor sap who happens to own the domain in > question. Because AOL is very big and is considered a target rich > environment by spammers, this means that AOL ends up bouncing a lot of > mail in a very short time. I just read they estimate they receive an average 18 million SPAMs per day. This is an example of how RFCs and other standards aren't always the best answer, because they often were written in a different environment than now exists (and other reasons, I'm sure). From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 17 16:30:41 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA21099; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:42:22 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id PAA21088 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:42:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.alien.bt.co.uk (orb.alien.bt.co.uk [132.146.196.84]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id JAA00236 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 09:32:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from nowhere.alien.bt.co.uk(really [132.146.196.238]) by mail.alien.bt.co.uk via sendmail with esmtp id for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:35:09 +0000 (GMT) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #4 built 1999-Oct-11) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:35:09 +0000 (GMT) From: To: Jeffrey Goldberg cc: owner-ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk, list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Wassup spam [was Re: hey wassup uKCrypto ;)] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk [Copied to list-managers at Jeffery Goldberg's request] On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Jake Hill wrote: > > > That ``idiot'' is probably a bot and it's currently doing the rounds on > > at least two lists that I'm on. The sender is different each time, > > picked from the list of subscribers. > > That was my suspicion. Do you have full headers of the bot's mailings? > > Are they all from the same network, mpx.net.au? All the ones I have here are. I must admit I blindly deleted a whole pile of them before I started to find them interesting. I've have asked others for more samples. I am starting to think it is remarkably restrained for a bot though! Headers at the bottom. Cheers, /.J >From bill.stewart@pobox.com Tue Nov 16 17:23:36 1999 Return-Path: Received: from dent.axion.bt.co.uk(really [132.146.16.161]) by mail.alien.bt.co.uk via sendmail with esmtp id for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:44:43 +0000 (GMT) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #4 built 1999-Oct-11) Received: from sirius.infonex.com by dent with Internet with SMTP; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:28:19 +0000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by sirius.infonex.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA06760 for cypherpunks-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:52:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (from cpunks@localhost) by sirius.infonex.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA06708 for cypherpunks@infonex.com; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:52:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from cyberpass.net (cyberpass.net [209.75.197.3]) by sirius.infonex.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA06689 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:51:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailarray.mpx.com.au (local2.mpx.com.au [203.29.192.98]) by cyberpass.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA21330 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:55:23 -0800 (PST) From: bill.stewart@pobox.com Received: from ---(really [198.142.239.33]) by mailarray.mpx.com.au via smtpd with smtp id for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 02:51:49 +1100 (/\##/\ Smail3.1.30.13.Y2K #30.35 built 1-mar-01) Message-Id: Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 02:51:49 +1100 To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net Subject: hey wassup CypHErpunKs ;) Sender: owner-cypherpunks@cyberpass.net Precedence: first-class Reply-To: bill.stewart@pobox.com X-List: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net X-Loop: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 18 05:30:25 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA01854; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 05:18:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from grover.en.com (grover.en.com [204.89.181.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA01847 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 05:17:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from en.en.com (d182.as0.clev.oh.voyager.net [207.180.234.246]) by grover.en.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA24792 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 08:15:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199911181315.IAA24792@grover.en.com> X-Sender: lncnurse@mailback.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:17:48 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Nicole Marie Spring Subject: AOL Situation Resolved Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Listmates, The problem with aol.com subscribers either not receiving any or sporadic LNCNURSE email has been resolved. One of aol's postmasters has assisted us in identifying and resolving the problem. This aol.com postmaster has requested that his/her email address not be given out. I will respect that. However, I am willing to forward messages to that email address on anyone's behalf. For those of you who are interested here is a summary. I have made a concerted conscientious effort to keep the context intact. We have learned that AOL has a policy of SILENTLY discarding selected mail messages as part of their ongoing efforts to fight spam. Unfortunately they will not tell us what rules are used to determine if a particular message will be discarded. They have only told us that the rules change daily and that the total amount of mail coming from a particular server tends to trigger their filters. Thus messages from listservers (which by definition deliver lots of mail) are more likely to be dropped than normal messages. We have been unable to find any official statement of this policy from AOL, but we've seen numerous confirmations from other listowners and from our helpful AOL postmaster. This AOL postmaster has created an open door policy to be approached for any other problems or questions. Respectfully submitted, Nicole Marie Spring, RN Listowner, LNCNURSE Sincerely, Nicole Marie Spring, RN Legal Nurse Consultants Russell, OH Listowner, LNCNURSE http://www.legalnurseconsultants.com From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 18 08:14:40 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA03285; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 08:00:08 -0800 (PST) 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 HAA03236 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 07:59:55 -0800 (PST) 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 11oU1m-00015j-00; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:03:18 +0000 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:03:17 +0000 (GMT) From: Jeffrey Goldberg X-Sender: cc047@neumann.ccc.cranfield.ac.uk Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg To: Nicole Marie Spring cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: AOL Situation Resolved In-Reply-To: <199911181315.IAA24792@grover.en.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 Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Nicole Marie Spring wrote: > However, I am willing to forward messages to that email > address on anyone's behalf. Please forward this on: Any site that engages in throttling is likely to have some false positives with legitimate email (discussion/announcements) lists. As such, it would be useful if AOL and others (1) provide a contact address for use by list managers, so that we can get in touch with you when there is trouble. (2) Set up a vetting proceedure for either individual lists or hosts or subnets for lists with certain characteristics. The vetting proceedure should require a fair amount of information from the list manager (or the mailing list system manager, some of which you decide on occasion to actually verify. The vetting proceedure may request the aol.com addresses on the list in question (it's not violating any privacy information since you have that information from logs anyway). It may also include requiring a real address of an individual or individuals responsible for the mailing list system. Subscription policy (does subscription to lists require confirmation, etc) Once a list/host/subnet is "vetted" then allow bulk mail from those lists/hosts/subnets as long as it meets other criteria. Occasional updating/checking of relevant information. Unless this sort of thing is solved, I, and other list managers, will simply have to advise aol.com members of our lists that some of their mail is not getting though and why. I don't think that that will make AoL customers happy. -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 Thu Nov 18 11:28:12 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA05210; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:15:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from kachina.jetcafe.org (kachina.jetcafe.org [205.147.43.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA05195 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:14:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from ee-nt (eckert@netcom14.netcom.com [199.183.9.114]) by kachina.jetcafe.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA09994; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:18:23 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991118104335.00a03100@pop.climber.org> X-Sender: eckert@pop.climber.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:43:35 -0800 To: Jeffrey Goldberg From: SRE Subject: Juno bounces (was Re: AOL Situation Resolved) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: References: <199911181315.IAA24792@grover.en.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 04:03 PM 11/18/99 +0000, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: >Unless this sort of thing is solved, I, and other list managers, will >simply have to advise aol.com members of our lists that some of their >mail is not getting though and why. I don't think that that will make >AoL customers happy. I had a similar situation last month with Juno.com, who suddenly stopped delivering mail to juno addresses if the Reply-To header was NOT the same as the From header. Duh. That's how email lists direct replies to the list instead of to the poster. The bounce message went to the list owner clearly stating the problem, but it was a legal header! Anyway, Juno had one of my subscribers on hold via a PAID 900 support number for about an hour. Many of them complained to Juno about the change in policy (with no advance notice). Juno never responded, but things started working this week. Along the way, some magic phone numbers came up to reach Juno without paying for the call: >>>They probably wouldn't appreciate the publicity, but here are some >>>telephone numbers if somebody else wants to give it a try: >>>888-839-5866 >>>888-860-5866 >>>800 JUNO 888 - I'm not sure about this one because I can't read my 2 am >>>in the morning note... It's more worthwhile to have subscribers contact their own provider than to approach the provider as a list manager, IMHO. SRE mailto:eckert@climber.org | http://www.climber.org/eckert/ Info on peak climbing email lists mailto:info@climber.org "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." -- Mark Twain From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 18 12:13:24 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA06068; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:09:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA06061 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:09:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA12158 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:13:06 -0800 (PST) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL Situation Resolved In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:03:17 +0000. Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:13:06 -0800 Message-ID: <12156.942955986@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk As one who has a longstanding interest in the topic of junk mail filtering, I have a question or two about the suggestions from Jeffrey Goldberg... In message , Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: >As such, it would be useful if AOL and others >... > (2) Set up a vetting proceedure for either individual lists or > hosts or subnets for lists with certain characteristics. I'm curious how this would work, what would be involved, and how effective it would be in the end anyway. I have no good basis for making an estimate of the total number of E-mail mailing list currently in existance, worldwide, but if pressed, I would offer a guess that there must be in excess of a million e-mail mailing list. Assuming that guess is corrrect (or in the right ballpark anyway) you are talking about AOL (and others) keeping a database of perhaps as many as a million different ``vetted'' mailing lists, right? Even assuming that such a list could be constructed (and maintained, on an ongoing basis) at a reasonable cost, how would it be used? Are you suggesting that the data base should contain the envelope sender addresses of all of the vetted mailing lists, and that each mail message that arrives at AOL (or elsewhere) should have its envelope sender address looked-up in that data base? Or where you suggesting that the domain name and/or IP address of the host sites for the vetted mailing lists should be what's stored in the data base, and that the sending IP or domain name of each incoming mail messages should be looked up in the data base? In either case, even if it was feasible to construct and maintain such a data base, and even if the processing involved in constantly doing lookups against it were modest, I have to wonder (aloud) how effective it would be in the long run anyway. If a spammer found out that a given envelope sender address was on AOL's whitelist, don't you think that he would just forge that envelope sender address onto his outgoing spams? Alternatively, if the whitelist data base is a list of sender IP addresses, don't you think that spammers would just poke around and try to find one of those whitelisted IP addresses that happens to sport an open/unsecured mail relay, and then just push all of their spam through that (in order to circumvent any other filtering that might be in place)? > The vetting proceedure should require a fair amount of information > from the list manager (or the mailing list system manager... _This_ is the statement that actually motivated me to write this response... because I *really* wonder about the feasibility of this part of your pro- posed solution. Let's say that I am an ISP (perhaps even AOL), and that you are a mailing list owner/administrator. Now let's say that I send you a short questionare, and ask you to fill it out and send it back to me if you want to be able to send mail to my users. What will be your reaction? What will be the reaction fo the typical mailing list administrator? Will you graciously comply with my simple request? Will you fill out the form and send it back to me? Or will you instead send me back a terse message in which you tell me (a) to take a flying leap, and (b) that I need you (and your list) more than you need me? These are NOT retorical questions. I honestly don't know how mailing list administrators would react to any sort of procedure or mechanism which, in effect, asks them to prove that they are NOT spammers, and which will deny them the ability to send mail to one's local user base if they fail to comply with the procedure. I'm sure that some percentage of list admins would be understanding, and that they would just comply (as long as the request seemed polite and inoffensive enough), but I suspect that there are many more who would take offense, and who would never comply, no matter how trivial or easy complying might be, and that there would be an even larger number who wouldn't take offense, but would just ignore the request because they feel that they are too busy to be answering silly questions from ISP. > The vetting proceedure ... > ... may also include requiring a real address of an individual or > individuals responsible for the mailing list system... Couldn't the envelope sender address on the mailing list messages themselves serve this purpose? In general, shouldn't mail sent to _that_ address end up being read by the list owner? When, if ever, should this not be the case? P.S. I don't know how many of you realize it, but the need to cater to (and to allow for) legitimate opt-in mailing lists is *the* central issue/problem as regards to spam fighting/filtering. If it weren't for the need to allow for legitimate opt-in mailing lists, we, collectively, (meaning the net as a whole) could have solved the e-mail spam problem a long time ago. It's downright trivial to distinguish be- tween personal one-on-one mail and ``bulk'' mail, but as the problems some of you have had sending your legitimate opt-in mailing list traffic to AOL have emphasized, not all ``bulk'' mail is bad. And separating the `good'' bulk from the ``bad'' bulk is in fact the only really difficult technical problem for anyone trying to do spam filtering. As one possible solution to this problem, the idea of building and main- taining a registry of ``legitimate opt-in'' mailing lists does in fact have some merit, but as noted above, it also has some problems. I think that the scaling problems could in fact be solved, but that would take some serious work. As regards to the building and maintaining of the registry, I myself would be happy to build and maintain exactly such a registry, and to make it available (as a service) to all Internet sites, but the main reason why neither I nor anyone else has ever tried to create such a registry is because of the likelihood that list owners simply would not cooperate in sufficient numbers to make the whole thing work. (In anyone wants to take issue with that last assertion, please feel free. I'd like nothing better than to be convinced that list owners would, in fact, cooperate with such an effort.) From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 18 12:59:22 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA06680; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:55:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA06672 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:55:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from (A17-216-27-198.apple.com [17.216.27.198]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA36584 ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:57:05 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19991118104335.00a03100@pop.climber.org> References: <199911181315.IAA24792@grover.en.com> <3.0.5.32.19991118104335.00a03100@pop.climber.org> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:58:14 -0800 To: SRE , Jeffrey Goldberg From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Juno bounces (was Re: AOL Situation Resolved) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:43 AM -0800 11/18/99, SRE wrote: > I had a similar situation last month with Juno.com, juno is beyond clueless. I simply tell any juno users to get a real e-mail address. If they want to try to use juno, they're on their own. -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Dogs see you as family Cats see you as staff From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 18 13:58:51 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA07234; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 13:32:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from kachina.jetcafe.org (kachina.jetcafe.org [205.147.43.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA07220 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 13:32:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from ee-nt (eckert@netcom14.netcom.com [199.183.9.114]) by kachina.jetcafe.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA11454; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 13:35:29 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991118133510.00a01730@pop.climber.org> X-Sender: eckert@pop.climber.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 13:35:10 -0800 To: Chuq Von Rospach From: SRE Subject: Re: Juno bounces (was Re: AOL Situation Resolved) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.19991118104335.00a03100@pop.climber.org> <199911181315.IAA24792@grover.en.com> <3.0.5.32.19991118104335.00a03100@pop.climber.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:58 PM 11/18/99 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >juno is beyond clueless. I simply tell any juno users to get a real >e-mail address. If they want to try to use juno, they're on their own. Yeah, but it's free and some people feel that's important. These days I send people to netzero.com, who have free email but ALSO have free web/telnet/ftp access (and more obnoxious advertisement boxes). Both have dial-up access, in contrast to the yahoo/hotmail variety. Everything comes with a price. Juno replaces email attachments with an ad for their not-so-free service. Netzero has a stay-on-top box that blares images at you while you're connected. From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 18 14:43:55 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA07902; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:34:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp2.usit.net (SMTP2.USIT.NET [199.1.48.42]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA07895 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:34:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from gva.net (MAIL.GVA.NET [216.80.135.3]) by smtp2.usit.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id RAA15899 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:36:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199911182236.RAA15899@smtp2.usit.net> Received: from default [216.80.135.17] by gva.net [216.80.135.3] with SMTP (MDaemon.v2.7.SP5.R) for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:35:09 -0500 From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:36:26 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: AOL Situation Resolved References: Your message of Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:03:17 +0000. In-reply-to: <12156.942955986@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 18 Nov 99, at 12:13, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > In message , Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > > > > The vetting proceedure should require a fair amount of information > > from the list manager (or the mailing list system manager... > > _This_ is the statement that actually motivated me to write this response... > because I *really* wonder about the feasibility of this part of your pro- > posed solution. > > Let's say that I am an ISP (perhaps even AOL), and that you are a mailing > list owner/administrator. Now let's say that I send you a short questionare, > and ask you to fill it out and send it back to me if you want to be able > to send mail to my users. What will be your reaction? What will be the > reaction fo the typical mailing list administrator? AND... what will be your reaction when this is the 2,587th request, as yet *another* ISP checks in. > .. I'm sure that some percentage of list admins would be > understanding, and that they would just comply (as long as the request > seemed polite and inoffensive enough), but I suspect that there are many > more who would take offense, and who would never comply, no matter how > trivial or easy complying might be, and that there would be an even larger > number who wouldn't take offense, but would just ignore the request because > they feel that they are too busy to be answering silly questions from ISP. And, as I say, even if you're gracious about the first ISP or the tenth, I doubt you'll _still_ be a cooperative camper with the hundredth or thousandth... The only possible hope for something like this is some sort of trusted global registry: if enough ISPs banded together coercively, they might be able to convince list admins to fill in some standard form *once*, and then any ISP that cares would be able to consult the DB and not bother the list-admin. It is always exciting trying to create order out of anarchy, but if it could be done, it could might even be feasible: the next version of majordomo, say, could include as a feature auto-registering any new mailing list on behalf of the list owner, or something like that ... And so all you need is almost every MLM, almost every list admin and almost every ISP to agree... piece of cake... :o) Of course, you'd also have to find a way to prevent a spammer from 'registering' [amidst the at- least hundreds-of-thousands of lists in the master registry] > > The vetting proceedure ... > > ... may also include requiring a real address of an individual or > > individuals responsible for the mailing list system... > > Couldn't the envelope sender address on the mailing list messages themselves > serve this purpose? Can't the envelope sender address be easily forged? And so you could spam all you want [and get someone else the blame] just by arranging to have MAIL FROM: goodguy@mailinglists.r.us ? [gee: I wonder if the guys who administer the '.us' domain realize that they have a commercial goldmine there.. :o)] So, on top of everything else, don't you still have the problem that email is largely unauthenticated? Or is that a separate/simpler/different problem? /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 18 15:45:10 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA08389; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 15:29:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from godai.maison-otaku.net (godai.maison-otaku.net [216.122.4.241]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA08382 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 15:29:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (loki@localhost) by godai.maison-otaku.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA09439; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 15:32:40 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: godai.maison-otaku.net: loki owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 15:32:39 -0800 (PST) From: Jeremy Blackman To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Listserver registry? (was Re: AOL Situation Resolved) In-Reply-To: <12156.942955986@monkeys.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > As one possible solution to this problem, the idea of building and main- > taining a registry of ``legitimate opt-in'' mailing lists does in fact > have some merit, but as noted above, it also has some problems. > > I think that the scaling problems could in fact be solved, but that would > take some serious work. As regards to the building and maintaining of the > registry, I myself would be happy to build and maintain exactly such a > registry, and to make it available (as a service) to all Internet sites, > but the main reason why neither I nor anyone else has ever tried to create > such a registry is because of the likelihood that list owners simply would > not cooperate in sufficient numbers to make the whole thing work. The 'meta-list' group that got mentioned on here some while back has created such a registry; take a look at www.meta-list.com. Admittedly, it's geared more towards end-users finding a list, but my point is that there are other methods of discovering mailing list information... I don't happen to -agree- with the mass harvesting they did, but all they did was probe at specific addresses (majordomo@, listserv@, listar@), sending the appropriate command for the listserver type they were probing to get a list of lists on that site, which was then parsed. As for a registry of mailing lists of the type you describe, I think that some very serious thought would need to be made on HOW it would be implemented. I keep thinking that the -best- method would never be accepted, because it would require cooperation between listserver authors such as myself, the registry authors/maintainers, and the MTA authors... but this method would be that each list would be assigned a unique identifier, almost like a PGP fingerprint. The posts from the list would be required to contain this fingerprint on something like X-MLReg-Auth: in the RFC822 headers, as well as the X-List-Id: header described in the proposed changes to RFC2369. Then an MTA such as AOL could query the listserver registry (using the X-List-Id) and see if the auth code matched. Now, I know that the problem is that spammers would become creative and do a query to get the auth code, so it would have to be one-way encryption of some kind; perhaps the 'Auth' string is a PGP-encoded passphrase and the mailing list registry has the public key and the decoded phrase? At any rate, once the MTA had verified it, it would be required to remove the authentication header from the RFC822 headers (to obscure it from the end-user, and thus prevent spammers from just grabbing the information). Then, of course, the receiving MTA would want to cache all its query results to avoid having to do massive numbers of lookups... Also, some of this - like the auth code - might be better implemented somewhere other than the RFC822 headers. But as a listserver author, I tend to think in terms of not having control over anything at a higher level than those, since even if a server I send to has a capability (like DSN), a server it relays to might not. The only way to ensure information remains intact from start to finish is in the headers... But, as I said, the concept of trying to get listserver authors and MTA authors BOTH to implement this strikes me as something that isn't going to happen. Few enough MUA and listserver authors have bothered to implement RFC2369, which is trivial. I suspect something of this complexity would be completely ignored. -- Jeremy Blackman - loki@maison-otaku.net / loki@listar.org / jeremy@lith.com Lithtech Team, Monolith Productions -- http://www.lith.com Listar Developer -- http://www.listar.org From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 18 16:44:55 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA09014; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:33:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA09002 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:32:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA46146 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:35:48 -0800 (PST) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Listserver registry? (was Re: AOL Situation Resolved) In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 18 Nov 1999 15:32:39 -0800. Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:35:48 -0800 Message-ID: <46144.942971748@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , Jeremy Blackman wrote: >On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > >> As one possible solution to this problem, the idea of building and main- >> taining a registry of ``legitimate opt-in'' mailing lists does in fact >> have some merit, but as noted above, it also has some problems. >> >> I think that the scaling problems could in fact be solved, but that would >> take some serious work. As regards to the building and maintaining of the >> registry, I myself would be happy to build and maintain exactly such a >> registry, and to make it available (as a service) to all Internet sites, >> but the main reason why neither I nor anyone else has ever tried to create >> such a registry is because of the likelihood that list owners simply would >> not cooperate in sufficient numbers to make the whole thing work. > >The 'meta-list' group that got mentioned on here some while back has >created such a registry; take a look at www.meta-list.com. Admittedly, >it's geared more towards end-users finding a list... Exactly. There are a number of different sites on the net now that have, by hook or by crook, amassed big huge lists of mailing lists, including the one you mentioned, another German one that was mentioned here recently, eGroups, and others. The problems involved in getting _any_ of these sites to help out or participate in the creation of a net-wide central registry of mailing lists is twofold: (1) Every one of these sites has .com on the end of its domain name, clearly implying that they are NOT going to be in the least bit sanguine about giving away the data they they have worked so hard to amass (for commercial purposes), and (2) it isn't at all clear, to me at least, what if any quality control has been applied to the data they have amassed anyway. Are all of the lists these places know about really ``legitimate'' opt-in (non-spam) mailing lists? I suspect not, and I suspect that these places never really cared... as they were creating there lists of lists... how exactly the lists they were cataloging are operated in practice. >... but my point is that >there are other methods of discovering mailing list information... Other than by obtaining cooperation from the list owners you mean? Yes, you can automatically probe around (an activity that I happen to have some familiarity with :-) but experience indicates that doing that is likely to earn you a lot of ill will, and even loss of connectivity (at least to certain networks) that you would otherwise like to obtain information from/about. >I don't happen to -agree- with the mass harvesting they did... There. See what I mean? > but all they did was >probe at specific addresses (majordomo@, listserv@, >listar@), sending the appropriate command for the listserver type >they were probing to get a list of lists on that site, which was then >parsed. As I say, approaching the problem is this manner will generate a lot of ill will, but more importantly, it will yield results which are rather spectacularly less than comprehensive. The reason is simple... an awful lot of mailing lists out there are _not_ implemented via majordomo, listserv, listproc, etc. Many, in fact, are just humongously long /etc/aliases entries. So just probing for majordomo lists, listproc lists, listserv lists, etc., is going to yield a far from comprehensive list. Bottom line is that in order to construct a _comprehensive_ registry of mailing lists, you really do need cooperation from list owners... and that isn't easy to come by. >As for a registry of mailing lists of the type you describe, I think that >some very serious thought would need to be made on HOW it would be >implemented. I keep thinking that the -best- method would never be >accepted, because it would require cooperation between listserver authors >such as myself, the registry authors/maintainers, and the MTA authors... There's that word again... cooperation. I would argue that you DON'T actually need any cooperation from the MTA authors/vendors, but that is only a minor quibble. The bottom line is that you still _do_ need cooperation from a lot of people who aren't terribly motivated to cooperate. >but this method would be that each list would be assigned a unique >identifier, almost like a PGP fingerprint. > >The posts from the list would be required to contain this fingerprint on >something like X-MLReg-Auth: in the RFC822 headers, as well as the >X-List-Id: header described in the proposed changes to RFC2369. That is easy enough to implemnent. All you need is to pay the appropriate license fees to RSA Data (or else use some unencumbered and exportable public key crypto stuff) and then arrange for the mailing list software to sign each outgoing message using its private key. (On the receiving end, post-MTA filters could check the signatures.) >Then an MTA such as AOL could query the listserver registry (using the >X-List-Id) and see if the auth code matched. Right. >Now, I know that the problem >is that spammers would become creative and do a query to get the auth code... No. Nothing that complicated. They would merely endeavor to get their own (abusive opt-out) mailing lists listed in the registry as if there were non-abusive opt-in lists. Why try to pick the lock on the rear window when you can just wear a mask and then just walk in through the front door? This is the REAL problem with the whole idea of a central registry... or _any_ registry... of ``legitimate out-in mailing lists''. How can you know, unambiguously, who are the Good Guys and who are the Bad Guys? How can _anybody_ know? Say I'm running a big free-to-everyone-on-the-net mailing list registry that is intended to ONLY list non-spam mailing lists. Now someone I've never heard of before sends me an E-mail and says he's just started a new list to discuss Tasmanian Devils and will I please include him in the registry. OK. So I add his list name and the associated public key to the registry and wham! Ten minutes later he's spamming the hell out of the entire planet. And no filters will stop him because he's not even pretending to be anybody else. He's just being who he is, but *I* have seriously misjudged his character. This is yet another problem that I don't know how to solve (in addition to the problem of getting list owners to cooperate with the building of a central registry of all mailing lists). But I don't feel too bad about the fact that I don't know how to solve this (character judging) part of the problem. Apparently, AOL doesn't have a reliable solution for this part of the problem either (which explains why they occasionally mess up and treat Good Guys as if they were Bad Guys). From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 18 17:00:08 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA09186; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:51:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA09179 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:50:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA48506 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:53:45 -0800 (PST) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL Situation Resolved In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:36:26 -0500. <199911182236.RAA15899@smtp2.usit.net> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:53:45 -0800 Message-ID: <48504.942972825@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <199911182236.RAA15899@smtp2.usit.net>, "Bernie Cosell" wrote: >On 18 Nov 99, at 12:13, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >> Let's say that I am an ISP (perhaps even AOL), and that you are a mailing >> list owner/administrator. Now let's say that I send you a short questionare >, >> and ask you to fill it out and send it back to me if you want to be able >> to send mail to my users. What will be your reaction? What will be the >> reaction fo the typical mailing list administrator? > >AND... what will be your reaction when this is the 2,587th request, as >yet *another* ISP checks in. Yes. There's a problem there too. >> .. I'm sure that some percentage of list admins would be >> understanding, and that they would just comply (as long as the request >> seemed polite and inoffensive enough), but I suspect that there are many >> more who would take offense, and who would never comply, no matter how >> trivial or easy complying might be, and that there would be an even larger >> number who wouldn't take offense, but would just ignore the request because >> they feel that they are too busy to be answering silly questions from ISP. > >And, as I say, even if you're gracious about the first ISP or the tenth, >I doubt you'll _still_ be a cooperative camper with the hundredth or >thousandth... Agreed. >The only possible hope for something like this is some sort of trusted >global registry: if enough ISPs banded together coercively, they might be >able to convince list admins to fill in some standard form *once*, and >then any ISP that cares would be able to consult the DB and not bother >the list-admin. Yep. That was my point. In theory, yes, this would be nice. Could it be made to work in practice? That looks very iffy. >It is always exciting trying to create order out of anarchy... Exciting yes, but if I have understood it right, I believe that the third (or was it the second) law of thermodynamics insures that in the Long Run, anarchy always wins. :-( >... but if it >could be done, it could might even be feasible: the next version of >majordomo, say, could include as a feature auto-registering any new >mailing list on behalf of the list owner, or something like that ... And >so all you need is almost every MLM, almost every list admin and almost >every ISP to agree... piece of cake... :o) Right! Piece of cake! <> >Of course, you'd also have >to find a way to prevent a spammer from 'registering' [amidst the at- >least hundreds-of-thousands of lists in the master registry] Yea. There's that little problem too. (AOL's solution, imperfect as it is, is looking better and better all the time. :-) >So, on top of everything else, don't you still have the problem that >email is largely unauthenticated? Or is that a >separate/simpler/different problem? Same problem, different context. Neither I nor anybody else seem to care very much if you send _one_ unauthenticated message to my server. If you are trying to send 50,000 message to my server however, I might kinda like to know (a) that you are who you say you are and that (b) you are not a spammer. Part (a) is easily possible to acheve with modern public key cryptography, at least if one assumes the cooperation of all of the relevant parties. Part (b) however may be insoluable, unless of course all mailing lists admins worldwide are henceforth required to put up non-trivial monetary bonds (which would be non- refundable if they were caught spamming). And on that note, I will ask to be excused now. I have to go feed my flock of flying pigs. :-) From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 18 17:15:11 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA09412; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:09:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from godai.maison-otaku.net (godai.maison-otaku.net [216.122.4.241]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA09399 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:09:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (loki@localhost) by godai.maison-otaku.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA09663; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:12:31 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: godai.maison-otaku.net: loki owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:12:30 -0800 (PST) From: Jeremy Blackman To: Bernie Cosell cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL Situation Resolved In-Reply-To: <199911182236.RAA15899@smtp2.usit.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Bernie Cosell wrote: > The only possible hope for something like this is some sort of trusted > global registry: if enough ISPs banded together coercively, they might be > able to convince list admins to fill in some standard form *once*, and > then any ISP that cares would be able to consult the DB and not bother > the list-admin. See my earlier post to the list (which hasn't come across into my mailbox yet). > every ISP to agree... piece of cake... :o) Of course, you'd also have > to find a way to prevent a spammer from 'registering' [amidst the at- > least hundreds-of-thousands of lists in the master registry] Well, more likely you'd have a way to lodge complaints against a registered address, and once a complaint was determined to be valid, the registration could be either revoked, or marked as 'blacklisted' - the latter might almost be better, because then you could have an MTA that was compliant with this registry able to add some sort of pattern to its local UCE/blacklist/whatever, upon getting a blacklisted response. -- Jeremy Blackman - loki@maison-otaku.net / loki@listar.org / jeremy@lith.com Lithtech Team, Monolith Productions -- http://www.lith.com Listar Developer -- http://www.listar.org From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 18 22:21:00 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA12075; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 22:02:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from bp.ucs.usl.edu (bp.ucs.usl.edu [130.70.40.36]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA12068 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 22:02:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from usl.edu (isb9112.usl.edu [130.70.65.242]) by bp.ucs.usl.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1/ucs-server_1.3) with ESMTP id AAA00720 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:06:26 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3834E918.BD803D65@usl.edu> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:07:20 -0600 From: Istvan Berkeley Organization: Philosophy, USL X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Stupid low tech idea References: <48504.942972825@monkeys.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi there, My list is inhabited by the 'technically challenged'. Also, the variety of systems they use often make hi-tech solutions problematic (do you have any idea what the 'state of the art' is in a 'have not' country? -- 286 technology is not unknown). I have an alternate way of dealing with spam -- a social engineering solution. I am fortunate enough to run my list on State machines. Our State prohibits the commercial use of their machines. So, to put it simply, spam is technically illegal. My policy is to be VERY aggressive about spam (1,000 auto-dialled collect calls etc.). It is not hi-tech, but it seems to work -- out of 24 attempts, I have 22 account deletions. Get a reputation and try and keep the scam bags at bay. It isn't rocket science, but it (so far at least, fingers crossed etc.) seems to work. Just a suggestion... Istvan -- Istvan S. N. Berkeley, Ph.D. Philosophy & Cognitive Science E-mail: istvan@usl.edu The University of Louisiana at Lafayette [Formerly, The University of Southwestern Louisiana] P.O. Box 43770 Tel: +1 318 482-6807 Lafayette, LA 70504-3770 Fax: +1 318 482-6195 USA http://www.ucs.usl.edu/~isb9112 From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 19 04:16:32 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id DAA19194; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 03:46:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from halifax.chebucto.ns.ca (chebucto.ns.Ca [192.75.95.75]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id DAA19183 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 03:46:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (user: 'potter', uid#5005) by halifax.chebucto.ns.ca id ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 07:49:45 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 07:49:45 -0400 (AST) From: "David L. Potter" To: Nicole Marie Spring cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: AOL & Lists Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi Nicole/everyone... We host a couple of hundred lists includins several busy automobile/health (oldsmobile/tourette) lists that deliver into AOL. If AOL is prepared to discuss matters with individual list-owners perhaps they would consider a 'certification' program of some sort that involves registering a list or site. The problem with filtering systems is that legitimate trafic is certain to get caught up in the trap. We filter incoming mail to mailing list and indeed I make adjustments every week. If we have to jump through hoops, it would be better to do so as part of list creation process and have that certification apply to all organizations that are in a similar position to AOL (managing large volumes of mail for users). Nicole, perhaps you could pass this along to AOL. david potter From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 19 09:27:42 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA23791; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 09:06:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA23784 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 09:05:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from v4j31 (ip12.proper.com [165.227.249.12]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17222; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 09:07:51 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.2.1.19991119090856.00ad48c0@mail.imc.org> X-Sender: paulh@mail.imc.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.1 Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 09:09:17 -0800 To: Istvan Berkeley From: Paul Hoffman / IMC Subject: Re: Stupid low tech idea Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <3834E918.BD803D65@usl.edu> References: <48504.942972825@monkeys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:07 AM 11/19/99 -0600, Istvan Berkeley wrote: >My policy is to be VERY aggressive >about spam (1,000 auto-dialled collect calls etc.). Is this legal in your state? Just wondering... --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 19 09:43:09 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA23729; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 09:02:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from kachina.jetcafe.org (kachina.jetcafe.org [205.147.43.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA23722 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 09:02:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from ee-nt (eckert@netcom12.netcom.com [199.183.9.112]) by kachina.jetcafe.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA18439; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 09:05:42 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991119084150.009d7df0@pop.climber.org> X-Sender: eckert@pop.climber.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 08:41:50 -0800 To: Istvan Berkeley From: SRE Subject: Re: Stupid low tech idea Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <3834E918.BD803D65@usl.edu> References: <48504.942972825@monkeys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:07 AM 11/19/99 -0600, Istvan Berkeley wrote: >simply, spam is technically illegal. My policy is to be VERY aggressive >about spam (1,000 auto-dialled collect calls etc.) Aren't annoying/harassing phone calls illegal also? And since they (apparently) pay for the phone calls, they CAN prove monetary damages and sue you. No, the high road is best. When johnny hits you, hitting back will only cause johnny to hit you again, and then the teacher will send you BOTH to the corner for a time out. SRE mailto:eckert@climber.org | http://www.climber.org/eckert/ Info on peak climbing email lists mailto:info@climber.org Never settle with words what you can accomplish with a flame thrower. From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 19 10:16:40 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA24601; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 10:05:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from halifax.chebucto.ns.ca (chebucto.ns.Ca [192.75.95.75]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA24594 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 10:05:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (user: 'potter', uid#5005) by halifax.chebucto.ns.ca id ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 14:09:10 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 14:09:10 -0400 (AST) From: "David L. Potter" To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Listserver registry? (was Re: AOL Situation Resolved) In-Reply-To: <199911190900.BAA14057@honor.greatcircle.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In some respects this idea is being wildly 'overbuilt'. Only one or two percent of mailing lists generate enough volume to trip AOL's spam filters... >From our site only 3-4 lists would need to register. Admittedly the threasholds might start to be lowered but as a start this could be managed with relatively little impact.... it's only if AOL or some other sites spam filter is tripped that a lookup needs to be done anyway. david potter From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 19 12:01:39 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA25477; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:47:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from bp.ucs.usl.edu (bp.ucs.usl.edu [130.70.40.36]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA25470 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:47:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from usl.edu (ish.usl.edu [130.70.53.59]) by bp.ucs.usl.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1/ucs-server_1.3) with ESMTP id NAA22345; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 13:51:10 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3835AA62.9E2C520B@usl.edu> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 13:52:02 -0600 From: Istvan Berkeley Organization: Philosophy, USL X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SRE CC: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Stupid low tech idea References: <48504.942972825@monkeys.com> <3.0.5.32.19991119084150.009d7df0@pop.climber.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi again, Actually, I have never used an autodialler. I call collect until I get bored of doing it. Usually, my main strategy is to contact the ISP. They are usually very helpful. I should mention though that sometimes the strategy can be a bit stronger than intended. On one occasion, an ISP in the NW deleted an entire company's e-mail accounts and web pages, due to one employee's spamming activity. I bet that didn't do much for the persons employment prospects. I felt slightly bad for the other employees though. The goal here though is simple -- make the cost of spamming very high. All the best, Istvan -- Istvan S. N. Berkeley, Ph.D. Philosophy & Cognitive Science E-mail: istvan@usl.edu The University of Louisiana at Lafayette [Formerly, The University of Southwestern Louisiana] P.O. Box 43770 Tel: +1 318 482-6807 Lafayette, LA 70504-3770 Fax: +1 318 482-6195 USA http://www.ucs.usl.edu/~isb9112 From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 19 12:31:28 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA25822; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:20:50 -0800 (PST) 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 MAA25815 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:20:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (from twp@localhost) by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA81242; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 15:24:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 15:24:07 -0500 From: Tim Pierce To: "David L. Potter" Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Listserver registry? (was Re: AOL Situation Resolved) Message-ID: <19991119152407.B11373@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <199911190900.BAA14057@honor.greatcircle.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 Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 02:09:10PM -0400, David L. Potter wrote: > > In some respects this idea is being wildly 'overbuilt'. Only one or two > percent of mailing lists generate enough volume to trip AOL's spam > filters... > > >From our site only 3-4 lists would need to register. > > Admittedly the threasholds might start to be lowered but as a start this > could be managed with relatively little impact.... it's only if AOL or > some other sites spam filter is tripped that a lookup needs to be done > anyway. I should think that the idea could be 80% achieved just by making the spam filters default to ignoring mail that was clearly generated by a well-known MLM (majordomo, LISTSERV or whatever). Black-hat filters could be added for rogue list servers or mail with forged mailing list patterns. -- Regards, Tim Pierce RootsWeb.com lead system admonsterator and Chief Hacking Officer From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 19 14:19:04 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA27282; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 13:59:14 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id NAA27272 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 13:59:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from liv-26.outlawnet.com (as1-100.dial-IP.EmpireNet.net [208.44.71.100]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id IAA16151 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 08:38:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by liv-26.outlawnet.com (NX5.67e/NX3.0M) id AA01829; Wed, 17 Nov 99 08:37:33 -0800 Message-Id: <9911171637.AA01829@liv-26.outlawnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain Mime-Version: 1.0 (NeXT Mail 3.3 v118.2) Received: by NeXT.Mailer (1.118.2) From: garyb@fxt.com Date: Wed, 17 Nov 99 08:37:32 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL References: <199911170900.BAA09323@honor.greatcircle.com> Reply-To: garyb@fxt.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > But, given all that: is there anyone else who is selling ISP > access who is, by policy, randomly throwing mailing list mail > on the ground without returning it? Yes, most of them. For another example - For one of my own domains, I got tired of handling mail to incorrect addresses and SPAMs (the domain is one typo away from two other domains), and had my hosting provider change the mail handler to silently drop anything not to a known address on the floor. The heck widem! If it's important, it'll get resent. My staff and I were spending an hour a day correcting addresses and forwarding mail to people at other domains, and they weren't doing the same thing for me - they were dropping it on the floor (I tested). Yes this is not nice, counter to the rules, and rude. No, I'm not alone. G From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 19 14:31:42 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA27293; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 13:59:21 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id NAA27285 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 13:59:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from liv-26.outlawnet.com (as1-100.dial-IP.EmpireNet.net [208.44.71.100]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id IAA16094 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 08:30:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by liv-26.outlawnet.com (NX5.67e/NX3.0M) id AA01819; Wed, 17 Nov 99 08:29:57 -0800 Message-Id: <9911171629.AA01819@liv-26.outlawnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain Mime-Version: 1.0 (NeXT Mail 3.3 v118.2) Received: by NeXT.Mailer (1.118.2) From: garyb@fxt.com Date: Wed, 17 Nov 99 08:29:55 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL References: <199911170900.BAA09323@honor.greatcircle.com> Reply-To: garyb@fxt.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Yes, I think this is AOL bashing. But I think it is for cause. > They have some serious problems that affect their customer's > service, and they show no interest in fixing them. I just read somewhere AOL estimates they get 18 million SPAMs per day. I have to wonder how I would deal with that level of rejection. There ain't no good way, short of changing the nature of the net from mostly anonymous to complete big-brotherism, which is not something I'd like to see. Will probably happen though. >From recent experience (actually with a system hacker who left traces in the tcpd logs, and didn't delete them in time), it is possible to follow some SPAM back to the perp, unless they used a hacked credit card to set up the original account. The headers _usually_ include the actual dialup account from which it was sent. I think it's possible to forge that as well, but it's not usually done. That and the timestamp of the forwarding host provide sufficient information for the dialup provider to identify the dial-up client who was on that line at the time. However, it is very difficult to get a dialup provider to do the work, much less provide it to anyone else, even with a court order. From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 19 14:49:29 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA27461; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 14:00:33 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id OAA27451 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 14:00:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from ifolk.iserver.net (ifolk.iserver.net [192.41.44.203]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA02109 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 05:44:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from SOUTINE2K (adsl-151-202-20-126.bellatlantic.net [151.202.20.126]) by ifolk.iserver.net (8.8.5) id IAA23859; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 08:48:20 -0500 (EST) From: "Tom Neff" To: Subject: Re: AOL dropping mail Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 08:48:26 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6400 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <199911180900.BAA26910@honor.greatcircle.com> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk garyb@fxt.com wrote: > I just read they estimate they receive an average 18 million SPAMs > per day. This is an example of how RFCs and other standards aren't > always the best answer, because they often were written in a > different environment than now exists (and other reasons, I'm sure). This argument doesn't hold much water. AOL gets millions of spams per day because they have millions of users. The number of spams received PER USER are no higher than any other ISP or service, big or small. The responsibility to deliver mail properly PER USER does not evaporate the moment you make corporate decision to blanket the Earth's crust with giveaway discs. There are definitely ways to handle that volume of mail in an standards compliant manner (and even protect forged senders from being mailbombed) if you are willing to make the appropriate investment in hardware, software, bandwidth and manpower. AOL is not, presumably because it saves them some money to use the Italian Post Office method - "quando in dubbio, gettarlo nel fiume!" This is just the kind of Faustian tradeoff that Internet architects have been praying could be avoided, and an argument against consolidation into a few giant commercial mail hubs. From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 19 15:01:28 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA27490; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 14:01:13 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id OAA27480 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 14:01:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from ifolk.iserver.net (ifolk.iserver.net [192.41.44.203]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA02109 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 05:44:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from SOUTINE2K (adsl-151-202-20-126.bellatlantic.net [151.202.20.126]) by ifolk.iserver.net (8.8.5) id IAA23859; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 08:48:20 -0500 (EST) From: "Tom Neff" To: Subject: Re: AOL dropping mail Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 08:48:26 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6400 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <199911180900.BAA26910@honor.greatcircle.com> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk garyb@fxt.com wrote: > I just read they estimate they receive an average 18 million SPAMs > per day. This is an example of how RFCs and other standards aren't > always the best answer, because they often were written in a > different environment than now exists (and other reasons, I'm sure). This argument doesn't hold much water. AOL gets millions of spams per day because they have millions of users. The number of spams received PER USER are no higher than any other ISP or service, big or small. The responsibility to deliver mail properly PER USER does not evaporate the moment you make corporate decision to blanket the Earth's crust with giveaway discs. There are definitely ways to handle that volume of mail in an standards compliant manner (and even protect forged senders from being mailbombed) if you are willing to make the appropriate investment in hardware, software, bandwidth and manpower. AOL is not, presumably because it saves them some money to use the Italian Post Office method - "quando in dubbio, gettarlo nel fiume!" This is just the kind of Faustian tradeoff that Internet architects have been praying could be avoided, and an argument against consolidation into a few giant commercial mail hubs. From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 19 16:17:16 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA28942; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:04:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA28935 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:04:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from (A17-216-27-198.apple.com [17.216.27.198]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA34122 ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:07:44 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:07:43 -0800 To: "Tom Neff" , From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: AOL dropping mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 8:48 AM -0500 11/18/99, Tom Neff wrote: > The number of spams received PER USER > are no higher than any other ISP or service, big or small. that's probably not true, but beyond that, it's a purely theoretical argument that I don't think holds water. it's like saying that there's no real difference to being in a room with one non-housebroken dog and 20. In theory, you're right. In practice, you can bet there is. I find it fascinating to watch people tell other folks how easy it is to do their job right, myself. I wonder how many people on this list could begin to architect AOL's system, much less build one that didn't implode in the first three minutes. -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Dogs see you as family Cats see you as staff From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 19 16:47:27 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA29212; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:33:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA29205 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:33:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA13051 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:37:21 -0800 (PST) To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Listserver registry? (was Re: AOL Situation Resolved) In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 19 Nov 1999 15:24:07 -0500. <19991119152407.B11373@ma-1.rootsweb.com> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:37:20 -0800 Message-ID: <13049.943058240@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <19991119152407.B11373@ma-1.rootsweb.com>, Tim Pierce wrote: >I should think that the idea could be 80% achieved just by making >the spam filters default to ignoring mail that was clearly generated >by a well-known MLM (majordomo, LISTSERV or whatever). I've seen spammers that use majordomo to spam. I think if AOL made the change you suggest, we'd all start seeing many more of them. From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 19 20:13:00 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA01190; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 19:58:15 -0800 (PST) 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 TAA01181 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 19:58:08 -0800 (PST) Received: (from twp@localhost) by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA87366 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 23:01:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 23:01:48 -0500 From: Tim Pierce To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Listserver registry? (was Re: AOL Situation Resolved) Message-ID: <19991119230148.N11373@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <19991119152407.B11373@ma-1.rootsweb.com> <13049.943058240@monkeys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.7us In-Reply-To: <13049.943058240@monkeys.com> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 04:37:20PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > > In message <19991119152407.B11373@ma-1.rootsweb.com>, > Tim Pierce wrote: > > >I should think that the idea could be 80% achieved just by making > >the spam filters default to ignoring mail that was clearly generated > >by a well-known MLM (majordomo, LISTSERV or whatever). > > I've seen spammers that use majordomo to spam. > > I think if AOL made the change you suggest, we'd all start seeing many > more of them. I doubt it. Most of the spam we get is still generated by spamware with recognizable fingerprints (the bogus "Authenticated sender" headers) and easily dropped. The fact that large numbers of people in the world filter mail on those headers hasn't dissuaded spammers. Obviously if you start getting mail from `owner-dirty-rotten-spammer@majordomo.spamhaus.nu', then you drop it on the floor even though it's coming from a legit MLM. But when you get mail from `owner-' or `-request' addresses that don't match any positive spam fingerprints, it's probably safe to assume that it's a regular mailing list. -- Regards, Tim Pierce RootsWeb.com lead system admonsterator and Chief Hacking Officer From list-managers-owner Sat Nov 20 00:41:51 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id AAA03226; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 00:40:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from newmail.spectraweb.ch (newmail.spectraweb.ch [194.158.230.44]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id AAA03211 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 00:40:40 -0800 (PST) From: nb@thinkcoach.com Received: from quill.thinkcoach.com (194.230.197.6) by newmail.spectraweb.ch; 20 Nov 1999 09:40:24 +0100 Received: (from norbert@localhost) by quill.thinkcoach.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA23044; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 09:40:05 +0100 Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 09:40:05 +0100 Message-Id: <199911200840.JAA23044@quill.thinkcoach.com> X-Authentication-Warning: quill.thinkcoach.com: norbert set sender to Norbert Bollow using -f Prefer-Language: de, en, fr To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-reply-to: <9911171629.AA01819@liv-26.outlawnet.com> (garyb@fxt.com) Subject: Re: AOL References: <199911170900.BAA09323@honor.greatcircle.com> <9911171629.AA01819@liv-26.outlawnet.com> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk garyb@fxt.com wrote: > There ain't no good way, short of changing the nature of > the net from mostly anonymous to complete big-brotherism, which is > not something I'd like to see. Will probably happen though. I am convinced that it it possible to redesign the way that the 'net works on the basis of distributed trust, without any need for any centralized institution besides the root domain name registry. Based on this idea it would be possible to make spamming prohibitively expensive. Can anyone suggest a mailing list or other public forum where it would be appropriate to have in-depth discussions of this topic? May blessings from the eternal God surprise and overtake you! Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow, Coach http://thinkcoach.com Backup email: nb@pobox.com From list-managers-owner Sat Nov 20 11:11:52 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA10947; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:03:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.143.206.18]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA10933 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:03:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from tpad.squawk.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA11126; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 14:06:52 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991120084325.03542c80@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 08:43:25 -0500 To: garyb@fxt.com From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: AOL Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <9911171637.AA01829@liv-26.outlawnet.com> References: <199911170900.BAA09323@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 08:37 AM 11/17/99 -0800, garyb@fxt.com wrote: >> But, given all that: is there anyone else who is selling ISP >> access who is, by policy, randomly throwing mailing list mail >> on the ground without returning it? > >Yes, most of them. I put to you that this was not random. Your policy was to drop anything sent to your domain that was incorrectly addressed on the floor, 100% of the time and to deliver correctly addressed mail 100% of the time. Your policy was not to randomly delete mail sent to correct addresses. Not the same thing. It does seem odd to me that you were even seeing the mail sent to these incorrect adddresses. Gosh, most mail systems tend to just bounce that mail without human intervention. What mail system were you using? Some hack that funnelled all mail to some domain to a particular mailbox? > For another example - For one of my own >domains, I got tired of handling mail to incorrect addresses and >SPAMs (the domain is one typo away from two other domains), and had >my hosting provider change the mail handler to silently drop >anything not to a known address on the floor. The heck widem! If >it's important, it'll get resent. My staff and I were spending an >hour a day correcting addresses and forwarding mail to people at >other domains, and they weren't doing the same thing for me - they >were dropping it on the floor (I tested). Yes this is not nice, >counter to the rules, and rude. No, I'm not alone. > >G -- That which does not kill us, makes us stronger. That which does kill us makes us smell stronger, after a few days, anyway. Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice) mailto:njs@us.ibm.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Sat Nov 20 11:27:31 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA10931; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:03:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.143.206.18]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA10923 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:03:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from tpad.squawk.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA11129; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 14:07:09 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991120091352.0492c320@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 09:13:52 -0500 To: garyb@fxt.com From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: AOL Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <9911171629.AA01819@liv-26.outlawnet.com> References: <199911170900.BAA09323@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 08:29 AM 11/17/99 -0800, garyb@fxt.com wrote: >> Yes, I think this is AOL bashing. But I think it is for cause. >> They have some serious problems that affect their customer's >> service, and they show no interest in fixing them. >I just read somewhere AOL estimates they get 18 million SPAMs per >day. No, they probably get 16 million spams and drop 2 million legit pieces of mail on the floor and call them spam. >I have to wonder how I would deal with that level of >rejection. There ain't no good way, short of changing the nature of >the net from mostly anonymous to complete big-brotherism, which is >not something I'd like to see. Will probably happen though. Let's see: It is a bad thing to bounce 1,000,000 spams to a domain. But you are probably doing name server lookups. You are also AOL, which has a custom mail system and, supposedly, some pretty smart people working there. So when you bounce a spam you do a lookup in some special nameserver or array of nameservers that talk, and when the bounce return nameserver hits 1000 lookups for a particular domain it starts retuning a special answer that says, "throw on floor" and it also generates a single mail indicating that the bounce limit is reached to the postmaster of that domain and apologizing. Heck, you could adjust this to be a proportion of correctly delivered mail from the domain. There are lots of good ways to deal with this. Real hard to do? Not enough capacity? Goes back to a question of oversold capacity aqnd ability. AOL has a hard problem to deal with -- more e-mail than we can imagine. Takes lots of servers, lots of capacity, lots of special coding. They purport to deal wth the mail and charge for having done so. They tried to trademark the phrase, "You've got mail". They therefore have an obligation to do the job in more than a half-assed fashion, and not to run screaming while waving their hands in the air saying, "Oh, tooo hard! Tooooo hard!" I worked on the Nagano Olympics. In my viewpoint, 18 million/day is not that many. It is just a question of capacity and scalability, having a big enough engine to run the database and so forth. >>From recent experience (actually with a system hacker who left >traces in the tcpd logs, and didn't delete them in time), it is >possible to follow some SPAM back to the perp, unless they used a >hacked credit card to set up the original account. The headers >_usually_ include the actual dialup account from which it was sent. Unless the first relay really wasn't, or they were running a old mailer that didn't build a proper received line. >I think it's possible to forge that as well, but it's not usually >done. I think it is real hard. I guess you could do a syn attack and do the whole conversation blind. :-) Or you could subvert backbone routers. There are not too many other ways to fake an IP. > That and the timestamp of the forwarding host provide >sufficient information for the dialup provider to identify the >dial-up client who was on that line at the time. However, it is >very difficult to get a dialup provider to do the work, much less >provide it to anyone else, even with a court order. Hmmm. You mean to tell me that there are ISPs who are refusing to honor subponeas? Usually this means that they will get fined for contempt unless they are out of jurisdiction. I'll admit that I'm throwing up my hands on Japan and Korea relayed spam these days. I have considered configuring my system to bounce all mail from any jp or kr domain. -- That which does not kill us, makes us stronger. That which does kill us makes us smell stronger, after a few days, anyway. Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice) mailto:njs@us.ibm.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Sat Nov 20 11:42:21 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA11199; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:27:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA11192 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:27:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA17449 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:31:30 -0800 (PST) To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Listserver registry? (was Re: AOL Situation Resolved) In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 19 Nov 1999 23:01:48 -0500. <19991119230148.N11373@ma-1.rootsweb.com> Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:31:30 -0800 Message-ID: <17447.943126290@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <19991119230148.N11373@ma-1.rootsweb.com>, Tim Pierce wrote: >On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 04:37:20PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >> >> In message <19991119152407.B11373@ma-1.rootsweb.com>, >> Tim Pierce wrote: >> >> >I should think that the idea could be 80% achieved just by making >> >the spam filters default to ignoring mail that was clearly generated >> >by a well-known MLM (majordomo, LISTSERV or whatever). >> >> I've seen spammers that use majordomo to spam. >> >> I think if AOL made the change you suggest, we'd all start seeing many >> more of them. > >I doubt it. Most of the spam we get is still generated by spamware >with recognizable fingerprints (the bogus "Authenticated sender" >headers) and easily dropped. The fact that large numbers of people >in the world filter mail on those headers hasn't dissuaded spammers. Note that I said ``If AOL made the change you suggest...'' ^^^ It is certainly true that most spammers do not and will not adjust their methods just to get around (say) the filters on _my_ system. But AOL is in a whole different league as far as spammer targets are concerned. Spammers will adjust (and have adjusted) what they do in order to cir- cumvent *AOL* filters. From list-managers-owner Sat Nov 20 11:56:52 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA10946; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:03:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.143.206.18]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA10932 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:03:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from tpad.squawk.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA11135; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 14:07:11 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991120113502.0492f4b0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:35:02 -0500 To: Chuq Von Rospach From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: AOL dropping mail Cc: "Tom Neff" , In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 04:07 PM 11/19/99 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >At 8:48 AM -0500 11/18/99, Tom Neff wrote: >> The number of spams received PER USER >> are no higher than any other ISP or service, big or small. >that's probably not true, but beyond that, it's a purely theoretical >argument that I don't think holds water. it's like saying that >there's no real difference to being in a room with one >non-housebroken dog and 20. In theory, you're right. In practice, you >can bet there is. And if you were in a room with 20 non-housebroken dogs, the local animal control people would call it animal neglect. You don't get 20 dogs unless you have the room for them and can care for them. AOL purports to run the world's biggest e-mail kennel. To put it bluntly, they have to have enough pooper scoopers to do it right. Come on, Chuq. I doubt that the number of spams received per user is an order of magnitude higher or lower than the rest of the world. I just checked their annual report on their home page. They claimed 13 million members in July of 1998 with 5 million new members in fiscal 1999 (see http://www.corp.aol.com/annual/facts/facts.html). That is about 18 million members, give or take a couple million. If the number bandied around here is, in fact, 18 million spams per day, then, my reckoning is that it is an average of one spam per day per user. If they can't handle one spam per day per user properly, then they are grossly underconfigured. I think I get more than one spam per user per day. They claim an average of 52 minutes per day per user....so that is around 15 and a half million connect hours per day. At one point they couldn't handle that either - and that was considered fraud. If, in fact, this is a capacity issue (which I doubt) then they have oversold capacity. Now I also read their UBE policy at http://www.aol.com/info/bulkemail.html. Their UBE policy talks about syntax checking headers and so forth. Yep, this is their right. However, they have implemented this in a way that burdens people like us who run legitimate opt-in mailing lists. I think that this is the issue. It is not a capacity issue, or a "real big job" issue. It is a bad design issue. >I find it fascinating to watch people tell other folks how easy it is >to do their job right, myself. I wonder how many people on this list >could begin to architect AOL's system, much less build one that >didn't implode in the first three minutes. I find it fascinating to hear you and others defend them for doing a job that would be criminally fraudulent and neglegent if applied to any other field, just because you think it is a hard job. People are paying them to do this job. They are taking money for it. If it is too hard to do, then they are taking money under false pretenses, eh? It is their problem to figure out how to do it. It is their problem to get enough servers and staff to do it, and to build a design that will do it. The reality is that they have apparrently picked a bad design and are spending an enormous amount of effort making it work as designed (broken as designed). This goes back to my original statement: AOL's mail system was designed by an idiot studying to be a moron or else they would not have made this bad choice. If this was a choice forced on the person with the "designer" title by management, then management is the designer. Let's see, how about reducing your defense to the absurdity that it is: You take your car to the dealer to be fixed. They promise to call you when it is done. You go back a week later after not hearing from them and find that there is no trace of your car. Then you hear second hand that the dealer had too many cars to repair and that their policy is to use some secret selection criteria to pick some random number of cars to be crushed when they have too many, based on whether they think you will be happy with the repair when it is done, or whether the service writer correctly filledout the repair order. You deliver your dog to an airline to be shipped to your aunt in Peoria while you take a "round the world" vacation. Your aunt never gets the dog. You try and put tracers on the dog but no one ever calls you back. Then you hear that the airline applies a secret criteria to determine that your aunt probably never wanted to take care of the dog so they euthanized it and cremated it without telling anyone. You are in a mail order business. Every day, you drop a large number of packages off with UPS. UPS uses a secret criteria to pick 33% of your shipments and incinerate them because they have something technically wrong with the label, even though a valid return address is written on the box. When you question them about it, they never answer, but you hear, third hand, that they do this to millions of packages a day, and that they can't spare the staff to call you up and tell you about it, because. Calls to UPS to try and trace lost packages are ignored because they deal with way too many per day to be bothered tracking any particular one. And in every case, when you dig around, you find that the fine print in their contract lets them do this. I'll be frank: Someone should write this up for one of the many rags that circulate. If it hit one of the major newspaper syndicates, maybe they would fix it, and not make it our problem as list owners. -- That which does not kill us, makes us stronger. That which does kill us makes us smell stronger, after a few days, anyway. Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice) mailto:njs@us.ibm.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Sat Nov 20 13:13:10 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA12016; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 13:10:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from godai.maison-otaku.net (godai.maison-otaku.net [216.122.4.241]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA12007 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 13:10:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (loki@localhost) by godai.maison-otaku.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA15592; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 13:13:58 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: godai.maison-otaku.net: loki owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 13:13:58 -0800 (PST) From: Jeremy Blackman To: Nick Simicich cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19991120084325.03542c80@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, 20 Nov 1999, Nick Simicich wrote: > It does seem odd to me that you were even seeing the mail sent to these > incorrect adddresses. Gosh, most mail systems tend to just bounce that > mail without human intervention. What mail system were you using? Some > hack that funnelled all mail to some domain to a particular mailbox? A 'hack' it may be, but a very common one for many hosted domains on ISPs. E.g. maybe I get 'mydomain.com' hosted on my ISP, and they direct all mail for 'mydomain.com' to my e-mail box. It's not even that much of a hack; most mail servers allow it as a standard feature, e.g. something like a line in sendmail's mailertable reading: mydomain.com local:user To redirect all mydomain.com mail to 'user@'. This makes it difficult to bounce mail since, technically, there -are- no nonexistant addresses. It's also a royal pain when people ask about setting up listservers under a configuration like this, since it involves teaching them Procmail, usually. :) This is probably why he had the problem he did. From list-managers-owner Sat Nov 20 14:13:07 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA12624; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 13:57:03 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id NAA12612 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 13:56:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from liv-26.outlawnet.com (as1-74.dial-IP.EmpireNet.net [208.44.71.74]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id JAA24383 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 09:53:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by liv-26.outlawnet.com (NX5.67e/NX3.0M) id AA00443; Fri, 19 Nov 99 09:53:10 -0800 Message-Id: <9911191753.AA00443@liv-26.outlawnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain Mime-Version: 1.0 (NeXT Mail 3.3 v118.2) Received: by NeXT.Mailer (1.118.2) From: garyb@fxt.com Date: Fri, 19 Nov 99 09:53:08 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL Situation Resolved References: <199911190900.BAA14057@honor.greatcircle.com> Reply-To: garyb@fxt.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > We have learned that AOL has a policy of SILENTLY discarding > selected mail messages as part of their ongoing efforts to fight > spam. Unfortunately they will not tell us what rules are used to > determine if a particular message will be discarded. They have only > told us that the rules change daily and... I've been following the search engine technology wars, and something similar is happening there. The search engines (altavista etc.) are retuning their search engines daily, trying to outsmart folks who are constantly trying to make their sites show up at the top of the list. They no longer publish the rules. And there are companies who spend full time submitting things different ways to see how to take advantage of the rules this month, and selling the info. This is not at all how we like to think of the net. We like to think of an index as a tool of the user, but the overly-commercial interests look at it as a kind of predatory coloration. Same thing with SPAM only more so. If AOL told us the rules, or just didn't change them constantly, the SPAMmers would take advantage of that too. Sick, sick, sick... Now I understand the role of Marshal Dillon and the Texas Rangers in the Old West, vs. the rogue cattle barons and the hoss thieves. From list-managers-owner Sat Nov 20 14:30:49 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA12648; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 13:57:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id NAA12640 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 13:57:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from liv-26.outlawnet.com (as2-116.dial-IP.EmpireNet.net [208.44.71.116]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id KAA24920 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 10:45:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by liv-26.outlawnet.com (NX5.67e/NX3.0M) id AA00574; Fri, 19 Nov 99 10:44:19 -0800 Message-Id: <9911191844.AA00574@liv-26.outlawnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain Mime-Version: 1.0 (NeXT Mail 3.3 v118.2) Received: by NeXT.Mailer (1.118.2) From: garyb@fxt.com Date: Fri, 19 Nov 99 10:44:18 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Listserver registry? References: <199911190900.BAA14057@honor.greatcircle.com> Reply-To: garyb@fxt.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Say I'm running a big free-to-everyone-on-the-net mailing list registry > that is intended to ONLY list non-spam mailing lists. Now someone I've > never heard of before sends me an E-mail and says he's just started a new > list to discuss Tasmanian Devils and will I please include him in the > registry. OK. So I add his list name and the associated public key to > the registry and wham! Ten minutes later he's spamming the hell out of > the entire planet. And no filters will stop him because he's not even > pretending to be anybody else. He's just being who he is, but *I* have > seriously misjudged his character. The key factor is that the list server owner (not necessarily the list owner) had to a) pony up his annual fee (and prove his real identity for all time). The registry need not pass any kind of judgment on the list, only provide the secure identification. The listserver would hold the responsibility to vette his list clients. If Mr. Evil does spam, then AOL would have the option of blocking that list, or in the event of continuing egregious support of spammers, any list with that listserver ID. No this doesn't guarantee that no UCE gets sent, but it provides a mechanism to enhance the ability to distinguish between good and bad UCE. Really, it's just an extension of the present, voluntary use of PGP for individual email. Nobody has to, but if you do, your email is more likely to get through. From list-managers-owner Sat Nov 20 14:44:21 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA12637; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 13:57:07 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id NAA12627 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 13:57:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from liv-26.outlawnet.com (as2-146.dial-IP.EmpireNet.net [208.44.71.146]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id KAA24654 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 10:15:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by liv-26.outlawnet.com (NX5.67e/NX3.0M) id AA00507; Fri, 19 Nov 99 10:15:07 -0800 Message-Id: <9911191815.AA00507@liv-26.outlawnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain Mime-Version: 1.0 (NeXT Mail 3.3 v118.2) Received: by NeXT.Mailer (1.118.2) From: garyb@fxt.com Date: Fri, 19 Nov 99 10:15:06 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL Situation Resolved, 2 (vetting) References: <199911190900.BAA14057@honor.greatcircle.com> Reply-To: garyb@fxt.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Actually, a vetting database would be fairly easy, if the traffic level can be supported. Here is the outline of one model, based on authentication/validation systems for VPNs and other systems. This example is oriented around a 3rd party (think of them as equivalent to Verisign or Thawte - root certificate signers) We use PGP as the basis. A mail lister gets a new ID phrase from the root every day, for example, via a secure query. This ID phrase is different for each list, and changes daily. The lister decrypts the phrase using the root's public key, then recrypts it using its own private key and AOL's public key. It inserts the phrase in each email going to AOL. (It encrypts the phrase with other providers' public keys for those providers, duh.) AOL picks up the mail, decrypts the key, and compares it to its own query to the root for that mail list's ID for the day. If they match, the mail is legit and goes through unless AOL has some reason to block it. AOL need not query more than a few times per day per list, as it can be cached for a certain time. Thus, AOL knows that the mail is from the real list, and can follow user-defined policy as to whether to let it through or not, either globally or per user. It need not know anything about the list, only that it's listed. Also, this doesn't require AOL or the mail list to participate - only those who want to use this service need do so. The entire system could be incorporated into list software, so the mail list managers have a relatively limited additional administrative burden. All key management and phrase queries could be done via email as well, so no additional ports would be required. There would be a once-per-year cost for the certificate (like secure servers) which might be a problem for small lists, unless it's per list server, not per list. This could still work if the ID can be used for multiple lists, with the presumption that the list server would not forge its own lists. Hey, I'd think this would be a good opportunity for someone to do - Thawte might even want to provide this service. Hey I might even do it if folks are interested. Would you pay $100 per year for this? G From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 21 07:03:01 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA25721; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 06:56:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from ifolk.iserver.net (ifolk.iserver.net [192.41.44.203]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA25713 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 06:55:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from patroon ([160.43.47.9]) by ifolk.iserver.net (8.8.5) id JAA12131; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 09:59:52 -0500 (EST) From: "Tom Neff" To: Subject: Re: funneling vanity domains Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 09:59:56 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <199911210900.BAA20313@honor.greatcircle.com> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Jeremy Blackman wrote: > A 'hack' it may be, but a very common one for many hosted domains on ISPs. > E.g. maybe I get 'mydomain.com' hosted on my ISP, and they direct all mail > for 'mydomain.com' to my e-mail box. It's not even that much of a hack; > most mail servers allow it as a standard feature, e.g. something like a > line in sendmail's mailertable reading: > > mydomain.com local:user > > To redirect all mydomain.com mail to 'user@'. > > This makes it difficult to bounce mail since, technically, there -are- no > nonexistant addresses. And it's really the policy that makes most sense if you spent the money to set up "tinyhandpaintedcatstatues.com" - what the heck do you care if people want to send mail to info@ or catstatues@ or heyyou@, it's all potential business. What you don't usually see is this kind of "custom domain" also featuring real ISP-type user accounts that come and go, are opened and closed, and need to bounce or not bounce. Those tend to have a real user DB of some kind, or at least a "hard" alias file. > It's also a royal pain when people ask about > setting up listservers under a configuration like this, since it involves > teaching them Procmail, usually. :) Or Maildrop, which I'm learning to like: http://www.flounder.net/~mrsam/maildrop/ But recent releases of Sendmail seem to allow you to mix individual and domain aliases, with the domain alias acting as a fallthrough if none of the specific aliases match. So you can take a LISTSERV/Majordomo address block and use it with (at most) minor modifications. Or you can use a subsidiary alias file for each custom domain: catstatues.com: "|/usr/sbin/sendmail -t -i -O AliasFile=/etc/catstatues.aliases" From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 21 11:03:07 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA27469; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 10:50:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from DATA.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (DATA.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU [128.2.232.11]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA27456 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 10:50:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU by DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (PMDF V5.1-10 #7763) id <01JILNY7STAO91W46U@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU> for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 13:51:27 EDT Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 13:51:24 -0400 (EDT) From: "A. Shettle" Subject: Accommodating low-end technology and social conditions To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Message-id: <01JILNY7X3MA91W46U@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU> X-VMS-To: IN%"List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM" X-VMS-Cc: RED_TREK MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Istvan Berkeley -- I got the impression from your recent post on Listmanagers that you run a mailing list with many subscribers in developing nations. I am one of the listowners for a mailing list, called deafintl, that not only has subscribers in developing nations but is specifically targeted at them -- the purpose of my list is to give people a place to share information, ideas, news etc. related to the empowerment, education, and social advancement of deaf and hard of hearing people in developing nations. Although many (I think most) of my subscribers seem to be in the United States or other developed nations, I consider those in developed nations (esp. deaf leaders) to be the target of deafintl and I'm always looking for anything more I can do to make it a bit easier for them to join the list and participate in it. I see deafintl as not simply a discussion list but as a tool of empowerment for deaf leaders in developing nations. I have posted some of these general questions on this list before, but I thought I'd post again in any case, partly because I figure there must be a new batch of listmembers who might have ideas that didn't come up before and partly because now that I know a bit more about the various challenges some of my subscribers face than when I started I can ask more intelligent questions. What challenges have you faced with your list in terms of making it more accessible to those using low-end technology, etc.? How have you been able to resolve these issues (or have you)? Do you think there is, realistically, anything a listowner can do about barriers to active participation that go beyond the merely technological? Some examples from my own list: 1) In my list, people who want to join must follow up subscription request with a confirmation (i.e., must send two e-mail messages). For various reasons, many of my subscribers in developing nations are not able to log in very often and can't stay logged in for long when they do. That means a simple subscription that should take minutes from beginning to end can take weeks or even months, assuming no listowner interference, if they aren't able to hang around long enough to wait for the computer to send them a request that they confirm their wish to join the list. I know it can be a good idea to have this two-step subscription process to prevent mail bombing and so forth, but I worry that it may be inadvertently keeping out some of the people I want most on my list. Any suggestions how to make the process friendlier? 2) In many (the majority?) of countries around the world, including developing nations, they have to pay for each and every local phone call; in some cases, they have to pay for each minute they're on the phone. That means hooking up to the internet can get expensive. I know one way to deal with this is for the end users to download their e-mail so they can read it off line, then write their e-mail the same way and upload it when they're ready to send it. However, I keep meeting people in/from developing nations who have no clue how to upload or download and who didn't even realize this was a possibility. This is frustrating to me because that means deafintl is probably losing a lot of valuable contributions from listmembers who think it would be too expensive for them to post actively to deafintl. I know there are many software programs, etc. etc. etc., for uploading/downloading. Can anyone think of a relatively simple way for me to help my listmembers learn about uploading/downloading etc.? (Keep in mind that not all of them have web access for the simple reason that the computers they're using simply can't handle the memory load.) Is there some kind of universal uploading/downloading help file that I could send to listmembers on request that could help them figure out what software they have in their computers (I think some of them don't even know) and what they need to do to use this software, or that can explain how to get ftp software if they find they don't have it already? 3) Another challenge that listmembers in developing nations face is, of course, the general poverty and poor economic circumstances. Salaries are so low that a number of my listmembers have to take two jobs just to support themselves (one listmember tells me that the salary from one of her jobs goes almost entirely to her rent; she needs the other job just so she can eat and clothe herself). Unfortunately, this means that some of the listmembers who have the most hands-on experience and knowledge to share with the list are too busy to post anything! I suppose there isn't really anything I can do about this as a listowner, but I thought I'd take a shot in the dark and ask if anyone has any brilliant notions I hadn't thought of. Andrea Shettle red_trek@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu (a co-listowner for deafintl) From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 21 11:18:12 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA27648; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 11:08:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA27640 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 11:08:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21453 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 11:12:06 -0800 (PST) To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL dropping mail In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:35:02 -0500. <3.0.5.32.19991120113502.0492f4b0@127.0.0.1> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 11:12:06 -0800 Message-ID: <21451.943211526@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.5.32.19991120113502.0492f4b0@127.0.0.1>, Nick Simicich wrote: >I find it fascinating to hear you and others defend them for doing a job >that would be criminally fraudulent and neglegent if applied to any other >field, just because you think it is a hard job. Personally, I would neither defend what AOL does, nor condemn it, simply because neither activity is likely to fruitful in any sense. AOL is the 800 pound gorilla. They can pretty much do whatever they want. From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 21 11:38:39 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA28076; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 11:23:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA28068 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 11:23:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from PELICAN.montagar.com (pelican.montagar.com [209.41.105.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA13512 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 15:26:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from AVATAR (AVATAR::SYSTEM) by PUBLIC (MX V5.1-X AnHk) with SMTP (DECnet); Sat, 20 Nov 1999 17:30:24 -0600 Received: by zone.montagar.com (MX V4.1 VAX) with UUCP; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 17:30:14 CST Received: from dithots.dithots.org (gwp@internet.dithots.org [10.32.91.253]) by dithots.dithots.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA18246 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 08:48:18 -0600 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 08:48:15 -0600 (CST) From: Bill Pogue To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Questionable Address? In-Reply-To: <32A18EDE.561F@ecentral.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Cindy Stanley wrote: > Also, what are your policies and feelings about non-subscribers posting > to your list? Well, for at least two of my lists I had to shut the door for non-subscribers... I had advertised them in the list-of-lists several years ago (and have subsequently removed them :-) and made myself a nice target for the ad-mongers. They'd simply send advertisements to the list upsetting all my list members... so I shut that door. It didn't really create any problems when I changed the list configuration to not allow "non-subscribers" to post (yuck, almost reads as a double-negative)... anyway, it did, though, alert me to all the users who subscribed one address but post from others. For example, someone sub's their home address, but on a whim, trys to post from work... there's other examples that fit this too. Just my small world worth of drivel... bill ------------------------------ Bill Pogue gwp@dithots.dithots.org Deep In The Heart Of The South From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 21 11:58:08 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA28033; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 11:22:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA28023 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 11:22:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from ifolk.iserver.net (ifolk.iserver.net [192.41.44.203]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA09206 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 07:01:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from patroon ([160.43.47.9]) by ifolk.iserver.net (8.8.5) id KAA10637; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 10:04:50 -0500 (EST) From: "Tom Neff" To: Subject: Re: AOL dropping mail Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 10:04:51 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <199911200900.BAA03485@honor.greatcircle.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > At 8:48 AM -0500 11/18/99, Tom Neff wrote: > > The number of spams received PER USER > > are no higher than any other ISP or service, big or small. > > that's probably not true, but beyond that, it's a purely theoretical > argument I maintain AOL accounts (along with accounts at Compuserve, Juno, Yahoo etc - it's the best way to see what my users are seeing) and it does seem to be true. I get spammed at AOL approx. 8 times per week, versus about 10-15 times per week at (for example) panix. The only accounts I have where spam is nonexistent are at services like Bigfoot where they offer an aggressive spam filter as a checkbox option. So this is not a theoretical argument at all... > that I don't think holds water. it's like saying that > there's no real difference to being in a room with one > non-housebroken dog and 20. In theory, you're right. In practice, you > can bet there is. That is something of a non sequitur. What I am saying is that the ability to provide service, PER USER, should not degrade as an ISP grows, and if it does, there is something wrong. People throw the "18 million spams/day" number around as though this were some storefront operation in Muncie being mailbombed by the big boys. AOL *is* the big boys! They make on the order of $50 million PER MONTH. They have humongous data centers, and they buy warp-speed mainframe and network hardware by the truckload. They can afford to hire the most brilliant programmers and systems architects in the country. If there is one organization in the world that ought to be able to handle its mail properly, America Online is it. The fact that they don't - that they drop legitimate mail on the floor while continuing to allow spams to reach the user's mailbox - implies one or both of the following: (1) they're not quite as smart about this as they could afford to be; (2) scaling mail up to that level is a harder problem than expected. I suspect that the answer is a combination of the two. The question is how, as list managers, we deal with it. I will write about that separately since Chuq's digression makes for an unenlightening subthread. > I find it fascinating to watch people tell other folks how easy it is > to do their job right, myself. We all find fascination where we can. I have been trying to figure out how they make those flatbreads with the sesame seeds. For the record, in saying that users have a right not to expect their service level to degrade as their ISP grows in size, I was not telling anyone how to do their job. Perhaps Chuq is responding to other messages, or just reading lazily, I don't know. > I wonder how many people on this list > could begin to architect AOL's system, much less build one that > didn't implode in the first three minutes. This is a killer argument except for the likelihood that AOL's mail system is not truly "architected" so much as grown organically, like the Mir space station, over the years as AOL grew. Nobody out here has scratch-built a mail system that's ready to serve 20 million users -- but nobody at AOL has really done it either! They probably wish they could give it a shot. Nevertheless, a few of us really have built some big systems, and there are choices that you make. One is the software; AOL rolled their own, probably after convincing themselves that this was the only way to handle the volume. Another is the bastion server deployment; AOL relies on 20 Internet machines, arranged using round-robin MX (four records) and then round-robin DNS (five IPs per MX name). (Add to that an unknown number of machines handling internal AOL-AOL traffic, probably using different software and routing.) Assuming that most of the 18 million spams per day are from the Internet, this means that each server receives around a million spams per day. Still a big number, but these are very powerful machines. ...And so forth, I don't want to think about it too deeply, I got my own garden to tend! :) From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 21 17:28:08 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA00979; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 17:16:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA00972 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 17:16:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197] (may be forged)) by plaidworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA89338 ; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 17:22:14 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 17:16:05 -0800 To: "Tom Neff" , From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: What is list-managers? (was Re: AOL dropping mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:04 AM -0500 11/20/99, Tom Neff wrote: > be true. I get spammed at AOL approx. 8 times per week, versus about 10-15 > times per week at (for example) panix. The only accounts I have where spam > is nonexistent are at services like Bigfoot where they offer an aggressive > spam filter as a checkbox option. > > So this is not a theoretical argument at all... And mine is the opposite, despite the fact that my aol account is not advertised anywhere. > That is something of a non sequitur. What I am saying is that the ability > to provide service, PER USER, should not degrade as an ISP grows, Which is like saying that, on a per-user basis, a McDonalds should have the same caliber service as that 10 seat restaurant down on the wharf. Nice in theory, but reality doesn't scale, Tom. It really doesn't. > We all find fascination where we can. Yeah, we sure do. On the other hand, it brings up a fascinating question. What is list-managers for? I don't ask that lightly, either, but to be honest, I view list-managers as a place where, hopefully, people who actually do this stuff can compare notes, get advice, and get some advance group-think/group-warning on emerging technologies and trends. But it's not. Mostly, it's Ronald, a self-admitted non-list-manager, trolling the list to tell us why were all idiots and doing it wrong, people like Nick, who only seems ot show up to browbeat AOL, and a few others who primarily seem to view list-managers as a place to complain aobut what everyone else is doing wrong, but never offer solutions or alternatives, and others who feel that if it was good enough in 1985, it's great now (Hi, Rich! grin). I've been getting pretty ruthless on which lists I stay on, because I simply don't have the time. And list-managers has been on the bubble for a good year now. I can't remember the last time I got useful information off of it, but I stay around because I keep hoping, and because I think maybe I can help someone else once in a while. But usually, all that does is get me yelled at by Ronald or Nick or Rich again, since, god forbid, I don't always toe the party line. n So why am I here? Answer: I dunno. But the bigger question is -- why is list-managers here? Because it seems it simply isn't used unless someone wants to complain about what someone else is doing. Is that what people want this list to be? Because fine, I'll leave and let you enjoy yourselves. Me, I'm seriously considering starting up a mailing-list-futures list, just to create a forum where people can talk about where to go next, because frankly, we can't do it here, not with the way this list deals with issues. I've tried a couple of times, and it always gets buried in the noise from the troll, and all I ever seem to hear is why whatever it is is a bad idea -- not how to improve it, fix it, or make it better. Whither list-managers? chuq -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Dogs see you as family Cats see you as staff From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 22 04:58:06 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id EAA09188; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 04:53:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from msic-1000 ([136.205.45.59]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id EAA09181 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 04:53:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from msic.dia.mil ([136.205.227.85]) by msic-1000 (8.6.10/Solaris 2.3) with ESMTP id GAA03551 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 06:58:24 -0600 Message-ID: <38393DE3.C940908F@msic.dia.mil> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 06:58:16 -0600 From: Allan Newsome X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: What is list-managers? (was Re: AOL dropping mail References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk <> AMAN. I've only been on this list for about a month but so far there has been NOTHING helpful from this list. The only thing I've learned is that those that speak out the most on here HATE AOL. I had thought I would learn something about list management from you folks that had been doing it a long time but so far...nothing. Why don't we see if we can actually talk about List Management and learn something from one another. Allan Newsome The Andy Griffith Show Rerun Watchers Club http://www.mayberry.com/tagsrwc/ From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 22 07:13:41 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA10574; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 07:09:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from queernet.queernet.org (queernet.queernet.org [170.1.118.14]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA10567 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 07:09:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (rogerk@localhost) by queernet.queernet.org (8.10.0.Beta6/8.10.0.Beta6) with ESMTP id dAMFDfm10804 Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 07:13:41 -0800 (PST) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: Allan Newsome cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: What is list-managers? (was Re: AOL dropping mail In-Reply-To: <38393DE3.C940908F@msic.dia.mil> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Allan Newsome wrote: > I had thought I would learn something about list management from you > folks that had been doing it a long time but so far...nothing. Why > don't we see if we can actually talk about List Management and learn > something from one another. "list-managers" is here for list managers to talk about list management. We're not going to talk about the issues you care about if you sit there silently. -- ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG urgent: rogerk-page@QueerNet.ORG PO Box 14309 San Francisco, CA 94114 +1 415 ALL-ARFF "There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 22 07:28:17 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA10721; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 07:25:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from gw.tssi.com (gw.tssi.com [198.147.197.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA10714 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 07:25:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from celery.tssi.com (nolan@celery.tssi.com [198.147.197.6]) by gw.tssi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA17403 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 09:29:14 -0600 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA31444 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 09:29:12 -0600 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199911221529.JAA31444@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Re: What is list-managers? (was Re: AOL dropping mail To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 09:29:12 -0600 (CST) Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > From: Allan Newsome > > < is list-managers here? Because it seems it simply isn't used unless > someone wants to complain about what someone else is doing.>> > > AMAN. I've only been on this list for about a month but so far there > has been NOTHING helpful from this list. The only thing I've learned is > that those that speak out the most on here HATE AOL. I'd suggest that Allan give it time, 30 days is hardly a large sample, especially the last 30 days. I think that this list tends to vary in usefulness more than most other lists I'm on. Yes, a large part of the time it consists primarily of preaching or carping. (And I think we've ALL done our share of both.) And lately it seems to be predominantly that. But if I have a SERIOUS list management issue, this is still the place I will turn to, because this is where the list managers still can be reached. I actually rather like Chuq's suggestion of a list-manager-future list, for discussion of future possibilities for list management software (or even for pie-in-the-sky ideas like mine to re-define the Internet based on a utility billing model), but I don't see how creating such a list would really detract from the potential usefulness of THIS list, and I would hope that Chuq and other active list managers would remain on this list, even if they have to tune it out a large percentage of the time. -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 22 08:58:22 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA11353; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 08:45:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.143.206.18]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA11340 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 08:45:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from tpad.squawk.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA29749; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:49:14 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991122103459.033aa630@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:34:59 -0500 To: Chuq Von Rospach From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: What is list-managers? (was Re: AOL dropping mail Cc: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 05:16 PM 11/21/99 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >> That is something of a non sequitur. What I am saying is that the ability >> to provide service, PER USER, should not degrade as an ISP grows, > >Which is like saying that, on a per-user basis, a McDonalds should >have the same caliber service as that 10 seat restaurant down on the >wharf. Nice in theory, but reality doesn't scale, Tom. It really >doesn't. BS. It is more like saying that, no matter how many more restaurants McDonalds adds, you should still expect them to serve a burger, and not to claim, "We can't get you your burger today becaus we are the biggest chain in the world and it is too hard to ship burgers to all of our restaurants every day." >> We all find fascination where we can. > >Yeah, we sure do. > >On the other hand, it brings up a fascinating question. What is >list-managers for? > >I don't ask that lightly, either, but to be honest, I view >list-managers as a place where, hopefully, people who actually do >this stuff can compare notes, get advice, and get some advance >group-think/group-warning on emerging technologies and trends. And not as a place where people who are running lists today can ask questions about their problems today? Someone who was running a list had a particular problem. Other people who had been running lists for a while (I'm one of those people) noted that this was a common problem. This digressed into a discussion of what to do about it. Note that the original person got the help that they needed. I see this as the most common activity here. Problem solving for today's problems. >But it's not. Mostly, it's Ronald, a self-admitted non-list-manager, >trolling the list to tell us why were all idiots and doing it wrong, >people like Nick, who only seems ot show up to browbeat AOL, and a >few others who primarily seem to view list-managers as a place to >complain aobut what everyone else is doing wrong, but never offer >solutions or alternatives, and others who feel that if it was good >enough in 1985, it's great now (Hi, Rich! grin). Here is a list of my posts since I've joined list-manglers: My first post to list managers was to offer a solution to mime, demime. xxx Mail problems about specific ISPs other than AOL: x Unsubscribing: x Users on digest: x Topica: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject tags: xxx Majordomo filters for jokes: x Sendmail mail delivery: x Commercial mailing lists run without confirmation: x Quoted printable rules: x BCC: x Problems delivering mail to Juno: x iname.com and verp: xxx IMRSS and spam: x Automatic confirmations and how to get rid of them: x A suggestion on how to implement probationary periods: x Verp in general: x Postfix and Majordomo and approved messages: x Uselessness of registering lists by sender address: x Why interpreted perl was not the performance issue some said it was: xx Signing up for a lot of lists: x Majodomo modifications: x AOL dropping mail: x AOL dropping mail redux: xxxxxxxxxx In other words, your attack on me is simply as wrong as your perception of AOL. I've offered a lot of suggestions and solutions. I've been running non-IP based mailing lists (frequently internally in IBM) since the mid 80's. I don't show up just to attack you or AOL. It is just that you are wrong so often. :-) >I've been getting pretty ruthless on which lists I stay on, because I >simply don't have the time. And list-managers has been on the bubble >for a good year now. I can't remember the last time I got useful >information off of it, but I stay around because I keep hoping, and >because I think maybe I can help someone else once in a while. But >usually, all that does is get me yelled at by Ronald or Nick or Rich >again, since, god forbid, I don't always toe the party line. n Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, Chuq. I don't always toe the party line either. But you are mistaking attacks on you for attacks on your ideas. When you can no longer tell the difference, it *is* time for you to leave the list, either to find greener pastures personally to take a break. But it is odd that you stay here to help people, while your perception of the list does not include helping people. >So why am I here? Answer: I dunno. But the bigger question is -- why >is list-managers here? Because it seems it simply isn't used unless >someone wants to complain about what someone else is doing. Given that the above is a record of the conversations I've participated in, I see this list as most valuable than most for the purpose of discussing alternative list managers, talking about problems that various ISPs are having, and so forth. But the reality is that people mostly post here when they have problems. The list software is pretty stable these days. Most of it has been around for quite a while. So problems are caused by someone who either is having a transient problem or breaks the rules. >Is that what people want this list to be? Because fine, I'll leave >and let you enjoy yourselves. Me, I'm seriously considering starting >up a mailing-list-futures list, just to create a forum where people >can talk about where to go next, because frankly, we can't do it >here, not with the way this list deals with issues. I've tried a >couple of times, and it always gets buried in the noise from the >troll, and all I ever seem to hear is why whatever it is is a bad >idea -- not how to improve it, fix it, or make it better. Chuq, if you want this sort of list, make sure only to invite people who agree with you. I've tried to read your paragraph above more than once and it comes down to, "People don't agree with me here." If you start your new mailing list, and people don't reach consensus (agreeing with you, that is) there either, what will you do? The other point is that you run really large mailing lists, and are interested in large mailing list architecture. I'm not that interested in that sort of thing, although I'm mulling over seeing if I can use the ten hours a week I can concentrate to try to do something that is lighter weight than what MJ2 looks to be coming up as, and the more I look at it, the more a lightweight non-transactional free SQL engine like MySQL looks like it might be appropriate for this activity, and the more a direct tie in to something like postfix (with world writable queueing directories) for delivery looks to be a good idea. I'm not sure how many other people are interested in really large mailing list architecture. Maybe this is not the right mailing list for you anymore. That is only a decision you can make. -- The largest civil rights organization in the USA? By far, it is the NRA. Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 22 10:43:07 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA12411; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:41:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA12402 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:41:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from (A17-216-27-198.apple.com [17.216.27.198]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA57684 ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:44:13 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199911221529.JAA31444@celery.tssi.com> References: <199911221529.JAA31444@celery.tssi.com> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:30:13 -0800 To: nolan@tssi.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM (List Managers) From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: What is list-managers? (was Re: AOL dropping mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 9:29 AM -0600 11/22/99, Mike Nolan wrote: > I actually rather like Chuq's suggestion of a list-manager-future list, > for discussion of future possibilities for list management software So do a number of others. I'll create it as soon as I get my new server online, if someone else doesn't do it first. -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Pokemon is a game where children go into the woods and capture furry little creatures and then bring them home and teach them to pit fight. From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 22 10:58:14 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA12465; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:47:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from bigtime.blank.org (bigtime.blank.org [139.167.64.222]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id KAA12458 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:47:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 2060 invoked by uid 500); 22 Nov 1999 18:51:27 -0000 Message-ID: <19991122135127.C14491@blank.org> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 13:51:27 -0500 From: "Nathan J. Mehl" To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: What is list-managers? (was Re: AOL dropping mail References: <3.0.5.32.19991122103459.033aa630@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19991122103459.033aa630@127.0.0.1>; from Nick Simicich on Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 10:34:59AM -0500 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Gah. I've been promising myself to stay out of this thread, but this is getting ridiculous. In the immortal words of Nick Simicich (njs@scifi.squawk.com): > > BS. It is more like saying that, no matter how many more restaurants > McDonalds adds, you should still expect them to serve a burger, and not to > claim, "We can't get you your burger today becaus we are the biggest chain > in the world and it is too hard to ship burgers to all of our restaurants > every day." Networks are not burgers. McDonalds does not have to invent a new breed of cow every time the old one runs out of gas. > I've been running non-IP based mailing lists (frequently internally > in IBM) since the mid 80's. Yawn. So in other words, not only are you clueless about the _scale_ of the problems that AOL and similar outfits face, but you probably aren't even all that familiar with the _type_. Here's my free clue to you, and then I'm going back to ignoring this sorry excuse for a discussion: you're taking a lot of static over your AOL bashing, not because anybody here has any reflexive love of AOL or desire to defend them (we don't), but because there are people on this list who are responsible for systems of similar scale, and your "oh well, it should be easy to do that right" carping is, simply, armchair postmastering. Smug assumptions about the "right thing" die a fast and ignoble death somewhere around the ten million deliveries per day mark, and the more you insist otherwise, the more obvious it becomes that you've never had to confront the problem professionally. I do not agree with all of the design decisions that AOL has made, but unlike you I have enough respect for the intractability of the problems they face on a daily basis to not make an ass of myself by belittling their work. In short, if you can do better, do feel free to demonstrate. I think they've got open positions in their mail group, as do Hotmail, Earthlink, Mail.Com and other similar-sized outfits. Talk is cheap. -n ------------------------------------------------------------ "You don't qualify as the typical male snakebite victim: you weren't drinking, you don't have any tattoos, and you have all your teeth." ------------------------------------------------ From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 22 11:13:07 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA12420; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:41:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA12413 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:41:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from (A17-216-27-198.apple.com [17.216.27.198]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA57696 ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:44:17 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19991122103459.033aa630@127.0.0.1> References: <3.0.5.32.19991122103459.033aa630@127.0.0.1> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:42:01 -0800 To: Nick Simicich , Chuq Von Rospach From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: What is list-managers? (was Re: AOL dropping mail Cc: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:34 AM -0500 11/22/99, Nick Simicich wrote: > In other words, your attack on me is simply as wrong as your perception of > AOL. As everything that doesn't meet your standards seems to be wrong, Nick. If Ronald is the list troll, you're the list Eeyore. > Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, Chuq. Oh, I won't. > But you are mistaking attacks on you for > attacks on your ideas. When you can no longer tell the difference, it *is* > time for you to leave the list it sure is. But the same is true when you no longer can tell whether you're attacking the idea or the person, or simply lashing out at anything you see. That goes both ways, Nick. I'm not burned out. > But it is odd that you stay here to help people, while your perception of > the list does not include helping people. I do a lot of helping. Mostly privately. But bluntly, it's hard to stay motivated when every time yo open your yap, you seem to end up in the latest iteration of the same fights you've had time and time again. > Chuq, if you want this sort of list, make sure only to invite people who > agree with you. Funny, there are only two people on this list I feel would be destructive to such a list, and which are the crux of why I'm considering leaving. And just as funny, there are lots more people on this lsit than two that disagree with me.... you can believe what you want, Nick, but "only invite the guys you agree with" is a stupid argument, and IMHO, juvenile and provably false. I don't require people agree with me. I leave that for Ronald and you. I simply wish that people give me the ability to disagree and hold my own views. the only thing I'm intolerant of is intolerance. > The other point is that you run really large mailing lists, No, I run lists of all sizes, from about 12 up. > and are > interested in large mailing list architecture. No, again. That's ONE of the things I'm interested in. But I've also been researching where to go with the servers I run for small-medium systems as well. > weight than what MJ2 looks to be coming up as, and the more I look at it, > the more a lightweight non-transactional free SQL engine like MySQL looks take a look at sympa. I think it's close to what you're looking for, and technically, looks pretty encouraging. I hope to run it through it's paces in january, once I get all my servers upgraded. > interested in really large mailing list architecture. Maybe this is not > the right mailing list for you anymore. That is only a decision you can > make. No, it probably isn't, but not for the reasons you mention or imply. but the question is, should the list be changed? or should I take off? That's not up to me, it's up to the list at large. I don't pretend the list ought to be what I demand it to be -- but neither should you presume to believe that it shouldn't be changed (I specifically am avoiding using the term fixed, but it's tempting). -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Pokemon is a game where children go into the woods and capture furry little creatures and then bring them home and teach them to pit fight. From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 22 11:28:34 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA12870; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:16:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA12863 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:16:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA23291 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:20:30 -0800 (PST) To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL Situation Resolved, 2 (vetting) In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 19 Nov 1999 10:15:06 -0800. <9911191815.AA00507@liv-26.outlawnet.com> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:20:30 -0800 Message-ID: <23289.943298430@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <9911191815.AA00507@liv-26.outlawnet.com>, garyb@fxt.com wrote: >Actually, a vetting database would be fairly easy... I dunno about ``fairly easy'', but it is certainly within the realm of technical possibility. As I already noted, the hard is knowing who to trust. >There would be a once-per-year cost for the certificate (like >secure servers) which might be a problem for small lists... Asking people to pay money in order to run a mailing list *would* be a problem, in general. A lot of lists are run for strictly altrustic reasons... the people who run them do so as a kind of public service, and they receive absolutely no clear benefits (other than satisfaction and enhanced status in the community) for doing so. It doesn't take a lot of foresight to predict that these people will almost universally balk if asked to pay money merely for the privledge of _continuing_ to persue their respective avocations. >Hey, I'd think this would be a good opportunity for someone to do - >Thawte might even want to provide this service. *I* would gladly provide the service, *if* I believed that this was a viable plan that would lead to a decrease in improper blocking of legitimate opt-in mailing list traffic and/or an increase in people's ability to block spam. I think that there would be no shortage of volunteers (to operate such a service), *if* the plan was viable. But any plan based upon extracting any kind of fee from the operators of legitimate opt-in mailing lists will almost certainly meet with great resistance in practice. From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 22 11:43:22 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA13101; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:33:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.rdc1.az.home.com (ha1.rdc1.az.home.com [24.1.240.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA13082; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:32:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from home.com ([24.1.251.121]) by mail.rdc1.az.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <19991122193700.HMGY9546.mail.rdc1.az.home.com@home.com>; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:37:00 -0800 Message-ID: <38399A5F.6012BF17@home.com> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:32:48 -0700 From: Kim Granieri Organization: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RockPages=2Eorg=99?= X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: AOL error messages...help! (please?) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi all... Since everyone has been discussing off and on how crappy AOL is when dealing with mailing lists and majordomo, I thought I'd throw this out to see if anyone knew what to make of it. I'm relatively new to majordomo (former listserv slave), and haven't ever come across this particular error report before. I've copied it below, there were actually over 100 errors on the post, but I've shortened it for space reasons, and the "XXXXX" is just me replacing the user names for privacy purposes. The error report contained the actual names. All the listees NOT on AOL received the post just fine. What does the mail status report mean? How can I fix it (I am using MD through my ISP, so I have access to the global config, and the list configs only)? Any help or explanation would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance... kim Subject: Mail status report Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:03:03 -0000 From: POSTMASTER@phoebe.hosting4u.net To: Your message could not be delivered to the following addresses: : BAD SEQUENCE OF COMMANDS (from aol.com:205.188.157.5) : BAD SEQUENCE OF COMMANDS (from aol.com:205.188.157.5) : BAD SEQUENCE OF COMMANDS (from aol.com:205.188.157.5) : BAD SEQUENCE OF COMMANDS (from aol.com:205.188.157.5) : BAD SEQUENCE OF COMMANDS (from aol.com:205.188.157.5) : BAD SEQUENCE OF COMMANDS (from aol.com:205.188.157.5) Reporting-MTA: dns; phoebe.hosting4u.net -- "...I didn't lose my mind it was mine to give away..." ~ Robbie Williams ~ _________________________________________________ «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ r o c k p a g e s ™ , i n c ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ v o i c e: (877) 766-0568 f a x: (815) 550-0444 e m a i l: rockpages@rockpages.org w w w: http://welcome.to/keynote-tonic p a g e r: 475620@pager.mirabilis.com _________________________________________________ «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 22 12:43:08 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA13573; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:21:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA13561 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:21:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA24085 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:25:55 -0800 (PST) To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: What is list-managers? (was Re: AOL dropping mail In-reply-to: Your message of Sun, 21 Nov 1999 17:16:05 -0800. Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:25:55 -0800 Message-ID: <24083.943302355@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >But it's not. Mostly, it's Ronald, a self-admitted non-list-manager, >trolling the list to tell us why were all idiots and doing it wrong... Ah... excuse me Chuq, but if you can make an effort to try to see past your personal animosity ... at least for a moment or two... you might want to look back at how this thread got started. This thread started when someone mentioned a subject that has come up more than once already, i.e. AOL throwing out mail from legitimate opt-in mailing lists. This is obviously a reasonable topic for discussion among mailing administrators (who have a legitimate concern about this) and thus, a reasonable topic for discussion here on List-Managers. I pointed out that spam filters (e.g. those at AOL) might possibly be constructed in a more reliable fashion (thus largely eliminating something that is obviously a problem for many list admins), *if* widespread cooperation among list administrators themselves could be obtained. If anyone other that you thinks that my postings in this thread so far have been: a) off-topic for List-Managers, or b) a troll, or c) equivalent to ``telling everyone that they are idiots'' then I will happily withdraw my earlier comments and add no more to this thread. >So why am I here? Answer: I dunno. Quite frankly, that makes two of us. I've noticed that you do seem to relish putting people down however. >Is that what people want this list to be? Because fine, I'll leave >and let you enjoy yourselves. Me, I'm seriously considering starting >up a mailing-list-futures list, just to create a forum where people >can talk about where to go next, because frankly, we can't do it >here, not with the way this list deals with issues. I've tried a >couple of times, and it always gets buried in the noise from the >troll, and all I ever seem to hear is why whatever it is is a bad >idea -- not how to improve it, fix it, or make it better. You are of course free to start your own list anytime you want, however doing so will not improve your ability to discern when people are discussing the future of legitimate opt-in mailing lists, as we already have been doing in this thread. From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 22 12:58:41 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA14075; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:55:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA14067 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:54:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from (A17-216-27-198.apple.com [17.216.27.198]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA36922 ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:55:23 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19991122154218.03598e80@127.0.0.1> References: <3.0.5.32.19991122103459.033aa630@127.0.0.1> <3.0.5.32.19991122103459.033aa630@127.0.0.1> <3.0.5.32.19991122154218.03598e80@127.0.0.1> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:54:46 -0800 To: Nick Simicich , Chuq Von Rospach From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: What is list-managers? (was Re: AOL dropping mail Cc: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 3:42 PM -0500 11/22/99, Nick Simicich wrote: > And everything that does meet your standards is right? nope. > Chuq, other than this AOL thing, what is it you have said that I have > disagreed with that is so discouraging to you? well, the AOL thing is more than enough, but we've gone into it a few times. Rich and I tend to disagree a lot, but when you rip into me, it always comes across as blindly negative and very personal. > I've posted a fair bit on topica. Oh, yeah. That was one of the other ones where you did your best Eeyore. >>If Ronald is the list troll, you're the list Eeyore. > > And you are the ancient wisdom of the list, the ultimate arbiter in all > matters? I just want to get the titles right here so that I can show all > due respect. Didn't you listen to anything I said in my last post? Hell, no. that's not what I said. If the lst prefers you and Ronald around, well, I'll happily leave. But it ain't up to me. Or you. Or ronald. I don't pretend it is. > The point is that I'm not lashing out at anything I see. Or that you don't recognize it as such. > I am lashing out > at laughable ideas. Um, well. Oh, hell. Looking at what you just said, there's such a disconnect in how things are viewed I won't waste electrons any further. I don't for a second disbelieve you honestly feel that way, and as such, I simply don't think it's worth wasting either of our time looking for common ground to discuss this with. There is none. -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Pokemon is a game where children go into the woods and capture furry little creatures and then bring them home and teach them to pit fight. From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 22 13:14:27 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA13838; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:41:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.143.206.18]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA13829 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:41:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from tpad.squawk.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA09937; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:45:39 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991122154218.03598e80@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:42:18 -0500 To: Chuq Von Rospach From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: What is list-managers? (was Re: AOL dropping mail Cc: In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.19991122103459.033aa630@127.0.0.1> <3.0.5.32.19991122103459.033aa630@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:42 AM 11/22/99 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >At 10:34 AM -0500 11/22/99, Nick Simicich wrote: >> In other words, your attack on me is simply as wrong as your perception of >> AOL. >As everything that doesn't meet your standards seems to be wrong, Nick. And everything that does meet your standards is right? Chuq, other than this AOL thing, what is it you have said that I have disagreed with that is so discouraging to you? I'm serious about this. I happen to have a complete log of all mail I've sent to list-managers since I subscribed. I enumerated the messages by topic in a prior post. I've posted a fair bit on topica. I've posted a fair bit on AOL. Assume that all those were strong disagreements with you and attacks on you personally. Where is all the disagreement that justifies this personal attack? Where are the personal attacks "every time you open your mouth"? >If Ronald is the list troll, you're the list Eeyore. And you are the ancient wisdom of the list, the ultimate arbiter in all matters? I just want to get the titles right here so that I can show all due respect. >> Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, Chuq. > >Oh, I won't. > >> But you are mistaking attacks on you for >> attacks on your ideas. When you can no longer tell the difference, it *is* >> time for you to leave the list > >it sure is. But the same is true when you no longer can tell whether >you're attacking the idea or the person, or simply lashing out at >anything you see. That goes both ways, Nick. I'm not burned out. The point is that I'm not lashing out at anything I see. I am lashing out at laughable ideas. By my posting record, I've lashed out twice: Once was at the laughable idea that topica.com was somehow above the UBE customs and rules that every responsible netizen lives by, and again at the laughable idea that AOL was simply too big to do a good job of processing their e-mail. I'm sorry, but these ideas were and are laughable, in my opinion. By the way, many respectable and otherwise intelligent people hold laughable ideas. I can turn this one around as well. There was an idea expressed here: That AOL should or should not be expected to do a better job of handling mail. People were speculating on the prooblem. Some even speculated about how to fix it. Those *ideas* might have been good or bad. You brought it to a personal level by basically saying that anyone who thought it was easy to do mail at this scale was somehow too stupid to comment about it because you *knew* it was a real hard problem. To quote a wise man from something I read just recently, "But the same is true when you no longer can tell whether you're attacking the idea or the person, or simply lashing out at anything you see. That goes both ways, Nick." If you can't tell that you are and have engaged in personal attack, then I put it to you that you are burned out. Now, you want people to speculate on the future of mailing lists, which implies e-mail, but we are too stupid to design a large system that works well? We better stick to the simple stuff we understand real well. Which means we are the wrong audience to discuss the futures of anything. I wish you'd make up your mind. >> But it is odd that you stay here to help people, while your perception of >> the list does not include helping people. > >I do a lot of helping. Mostly privately. But bluntly, it's hard to >stay motivated when every time yo open your yap, you seem to end up >in the latest iteration of the same fights you've had time and time >again. And why does that happen, Chuq? Why are you, of all people, getting lashed out at every time you open your yap? Why am I doing it? For that matter, where is the e-mail that shows me doing it? >> Chuq, if you want this sort of list, make sure only to invite people who >> agree with you. > >Funny, there are only two people on this list I feel would be >destructive to such a list, and which are the crux of why I'm >considering leaving. And just as funny, there are lots more people on >this lsit than two that disagree with me.... I stick by my point. If it weren't us it would be the next two who happened to disagree with you. If you do form this list, I promise I won't join, knowing how you feel about this. Besides, my place is here as list eeyore. Maybe the list troll will agree that the list you form would be a place he didn't want to go as well. >you can believe what you want, Nick, but "only invite the guys you >agree with" is a stupid argument, and IMHO, juvenile and provably >false. Yes, I agree it is a juvenile. Because, frankly, I was just restating a summary of your words back to you. Look, Chuq, you've been around the net longer than I have. Frankly, the "I'm taking my ball and bat and forming another list because I don't like the people here" argument has been made many times, and it is *always* juvenile. My restatement of your words was equally juvenile, but I didn't originate the juvenile idea, I just put it into simpler terms. I believe strongly that anyone who has been around for as long as you have has seen this whole mess before and can recognize it for the ploy that it is. It is not juvenile to form another list, especially if you want to talk about something else. It is juvenile to use the "this list is somehow inferior because it does not want to talk about things I want to talk about, in the way I want to talk about them" argument. > I don't require people agree with me. I leave that for Ronald >and you. I simply wish that people give me the ability to disagree >and hold my own views. the only thing I'm intolerant of is >intolerance. But, Chuq, if represents my reading of your paragraph. You are looking to reach consensus. So am I. You think that it is impossible for AOL to do a good job on e-mail or that they are doing the best possible job with their e-mail or that I'm too stupid to criticize the job that they are doing or something. Your first comments were beliefs, you have the right to express them. People have the right to disagree with you. When you start the personal attacks with the "you people don't understand how hard this is or they would just shut up bullshit," you brought this to a personal level. Frankly, you invited the personal attacks in return. >> The other point is that you run really large mailing lists, > >No, I run lists of all sizes, from about 12 up. > >> and are >> interested in large mailing list architecture. > >No, again. That's ONE of the things I'm interested in. But I've also >been researching where to go with the servers I run for small-medium >systems as well. Well, fine. When you have talked about list architecture, you've mostly talked about big lists, in so far as I remember. >> weight than what MJ2 looks to be coming up as, and the more I look at it, >> the more a lightweight non-transactional free SQL engine like MySQL looks > >take a look at sympa. I think it's close to what you're looking for, >and technically, looks pretty encouraging. I hope to run it through >it's paces in january, once I get all my servers upgraded. > >> interested in really large mailing list architecture. Maybe this is not >> the right mailing list for you anymore. That is only a decision you can >> make. > >No, it probably isn't, but not for the reasons you mention or imply. >but the question is, should the list be changed? or should I take >off? That's not up to me, it's up to the list at large. > >I don't pretend the list ought to be what I demand it to be -- but >neither should you presume to believe that it shouldn't be changed (I >specifically am avoiding using the term fixed, but it's tempting). I put to you the same suggestion that was put before Allan Newsome: If you want this list to be about something, post about it. >Pokemon is a game where children go into the woods and capture furry >little creatures and then bring them home and teach them to pit fight. Come on, not *all* of them are furry. -- Do you have 10 years experience? Or one month's experience repeated 120 times? Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice) mailto:njs@us.ibm.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 22 13:58:07 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA14584; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 13:51:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from FSM-1.PICA.ARMY.MIL (fsm-1.pica.army.mil [129.139.96.87]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id NAA14577 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 13:51:45 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 99 16:57:54 EST From: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: What is list-managers? (was Re: AOL dropping mail Message-ID: <9911221657.aa27429@fsm-1.fsm-1.pica.army.mil> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk As my mother used to say "Take it out in the back yard!" Enough. Tom Coradeschi, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer http://labview.pica.army.mil/ From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 22 14:13:08 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA14643; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 13:57:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from godai.maison-otaku.net (godai.maison-otaku.net [216.122.4.241]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA14634 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 13:57:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (loki@localhost) by godai.maison-otaku.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA00647; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:00:58 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: godai.maison-otaku.net: loki owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:00:52 -0800 (PST) From: Jeremy Blackman To: Chuq Von Rospach cc: nolan@tssi.com, List Managers Subject: Re: What is list-managers? (was Re: AOL dropping mail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > I actually rather like Chuq's suggestion of a list-manager-future list, > > for discussion of future possibilities for list management software > > So do a number of others. I'll create it as soon as I get my new > server online, if someone else doesn't do it first. Ok, I'll bite... mailto:listmanager-futures-request@lightlist.com?Subject=subscribe Voila. :) -- Jeremy Blackman - loki@maison-otaku.net / loki@listar.org / jeremy@lith.com Lithtech Team, Monolith Productions -- http://www.lith.com Listar Developer -- http://www.listar.org From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 22 14:28:14 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA14598; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 13:54:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA14591 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 13:53:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from (A17-216-27-198.apple.com [17.216.27.198]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA21096 ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 13:49:44 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <24083.943302355@monkeys.com> References: <24083.943302355@monkeys.com> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 13:49:43 -0800 To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: What is list-managers? (was Re: AOL dropping mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:25 PM -0800 11/22/99, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > Ah... excuse me Chuq, but if you can make an effort to try to see past > your personal animosity ... Sorry, Ronald. But the various discussions we've had in the past in public and private have made that impossible. While I personally don't believe in keeping grudges and in trying to leave personalities out of the discussions, but you've badgered and attacked me enough times that you've joined the small list of people for whom I'll make an exception of my no-grudge rule. > This is obviously a reasonable topic for discussion among mailing > administrators (who have a legitimate concern about this) and thus, > a reasonable topic for discussion here on List-Managers. Yes, and it was immediately bludgeoned into uselessness by a couple of people who took advantage of the discussion to (once again) get up on their bully pulpit, and (once again) tell us how AOL sucks. Tell me, what did all of the screaming and whining and bitching about AOL do to actually solve anything? All it did was make most of us just leave the discussion out of disgust. -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Pokemon is a game where children go into the woods and capture furry little creatures and then bring them home and teach them to pit fight. From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 22 14:44:12 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA14903; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:04:42 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id OAA14895 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:04:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from ifolk.iserver.net (ifolk.iserver.net [192.41.44.203]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA01946 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 19:10:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from patroon ([160.43.47.9]) by ifolk.iserver.net (8.8.5) id WAA07837; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 22:14:37 -0500 (EST) From: "Tom Neff" To: Subject: Re: AOL dropping mail Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 22:14:44 -0500 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 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq Von Rospach [mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com] wrote: > At 10:04 AM -0500 11/20/99, Tom Neff wrote: > > be true. I get spammed at AOL approx. 8 times per week, versus > > about 10-15 times per week at (for example) panix... > > And mine is the opposite, despite the fact that my aol account is not > advertised anywhere. Even if the numbers were reversed, the number of spams per user are approximately in the same ballpark, which was my point. It is not as though AOL is burdened with a hundred spams per user per day whilst other ISP's escape with two or three per user per day. When measured per user day - the unit people are billing against - AOL's target rate appears to be about average. > > That is something of a non sequitur. What I am saying is that > > the ability to provide service, PER USER, should not degrade > > as an ISP grows, > > Which is like saying that, on a per-user basis, a McDonalds should > have the same caliber service as that 10 seat restaurant down on the > wharf. Well, first of all, lots of 10 seat restaurants have LOUSY service and if you don't believe me, try the diner down on my corner. :) But since 10 seat restaurants do not actually change species and grow into McDonalds franchises, it would be more applicable to say that when Mickey D's went from a 24 store regional chain to a 240 store national chain, and thence to 2,400 and eventually 24,000 stores worldwide, their customers had a right to expect the same prompt and courteous service (and lawsuit-scalding coffee and inedible food, but hey) at each stage along the way. They would not have expected (or tolerated) having nobody answer the drive-thru buzzer, or seeing mayonnaise squirted on their Egg McMuffin, and then being told as an excuse "listen, do you realize how many locations we have to worry about these days?!" Their responsibility to serve YOU at YOUR chosen location didn't diminish. And the same is true for AOL. I do not really care whether a few folks have convinced themselves that this is just "nice in theory," because I know for a fact that it doesn't have to be as bad as AOL currently does it. I suspect several of us here could implement substantive improvements that would bring AOL in line with Internet standards and expectations if we had the access and resources. All that would be necessary would be for AOL to really give a damn. I do not think they do, at the decision making level that counts for these things. > On the other hand, it brings up a fascinating question. What is > list-managers for? That is not a fascinating question, it is a dismal and time-wasting question. List-Managers is for discussing pertinent issues of interest to list managers. If it's not of interest we don't discuss it, even if someone tries to bring it up. What List-Managers is definitely NOT for is languorous navel-gazing and meta-commentary about other people's thread choices. I find useful information here and I enjoy sharing some things I've learned. This is probably true for a majority of members. I am sure that Chuq would agree that just because there is vigorous disagreement with one of his opinions, it does not automatically follow that the list has lost its purpose! From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 22 15:13:40 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA15318; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:51:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from server.postmodern.com (server.postmodern.com [216.240.39.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA15311 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:51:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from postmodern.com (foucault.postmodern.com [216.240.39.5]) by server.postmodern.com (8.8.5/mcb-980201) with ESMTP id OAA29116; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:55:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3839C9FA.4730BAA8@postmodern.com> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:56:19 -0800 From: "Michael C. Berch" Reply-To: mcb@postmodern.com Organization: Postmodern Consulting, California USA X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: What is list-managers? References: <24083.943302355@monkeys.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk As the List-Managers list manager, I would really like to see the _ad hominem_ unpleasantness on the list stop. It serves no useful purpose, and simply drives away those who would like to participate and contribute. We will certainly have differences of opinion on matters of both substance and style, but please let's not let them become the centerpiece of discussions. People are entitled to hold grudges and maintain personal animosities all they want... just don't post about them on List-Managers. Either private mail, or stewing quietly in your own juices, is preferable. I trust this will serve as a word to the wise. -- Michael C. Berch list-managers list manager mcb@postmodern.com / mcb@greatcircle.com From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 22 15:43:07 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA15818; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:38:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from godai.maison-otaku.net (godai.maison-otaku.net [216.122.4.241]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA15810 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:38:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (loki@localhost) by godai.maison-otaku.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA00866 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:42:59 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: godai.maison-otaku.net: loki owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:42:58 -0800 (PST) From: Jeremy Blackman To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: What is list-managers? (was Re: AOL dropping mail In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19991122154218.03598e80@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Nick Simicich wrote: > It is not juvenile to form another list, especially if you want to talk > about something else. It is juvenile to use the "this list is somehow > inferior because it does not want to talk about things I want to talk > about, in the way I want to talk about them" argument. I think that some of the question was whether or not list-managers is intended as a place to discuss the future of list management as the Internet changes (a very valid topic, and an important one), or just more day-to-day present dealing with list management problems. I think both have their place. Whether or not both belong on the same list is a matter of opinion; I will admit that in my own observation, this list tends to be more useful in dealing with the day-to-day problems. However, the discussion about AOL does prove that the face of the Internet is changing. In years past, spammers and huge overburdened ISPs weren't really a concern... but they'll only get to be MORE of a concern as time goes on. Chuq is right in suggesting that list management will continue to evolve, and that discussion on that topic is valid and merited. I do agree that this list is most useful for dealing with problems in the present of mailing list management; as was pointed out, many people don't run lists large enough to -need- to care about things such as massive list server architecture. Hence, another list -is- probably warranted (and that's why this discussion prompted me to create one). > >No, again. That's ONE of the things I'm interested in. But I've also > >been researching where to go with the servers I run for small-medium > >systems as well. > > Well, fine. When you have talked about list architecture, you've mostly > talked about big lists, in so far as I remember. In fairness, that's where problems start to crop up. :) It's easy to design a list architecture that works efficiently for 12 people; it's harder to design one that works efficiently for 12 million. So list architecture for large lists is probably going to be a more common topic. ;) -- Jeremy Blackman - loki@maison-otaku.net / loki@listar.org / jeremy@lith.com Lithtech Team, Monolith Productions -- http://www.lith.com Listar Developer -- http://www.listar.org From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 22 18:28:40 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA17426; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:25:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from ivan.iecc.com (ivan.iecc.com [208.31.42.33]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id SAA17419 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:25:15 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 12446 invoked by uid 100); 22 Nov 1999 21:29:29 -0500 Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 21:29:27 -0500 (EST) From: John R Levine To: Kim Granieri cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL error messages...help! (please?) In-Reply-To: <38399A5F.6012BF17@home.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > What does the mail status report mean? How can I fix it (I am using MD > through my ISP, so I have access to the global config, and the list > configs only)? I suspect it means that there's something wacky with your ISP's mail transfer agent. That's not majordomo, it appears to be something called DSMTP, from a company in New Zealand that makes a popular (but unrelated) product called DNEWS. I had no trouble provoking that error message when I connected to AOL's server and tried sending mail commands out of the standard order. > Subject: Mail status report > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:03:03 -0000 > From: POSTMASTER@phoebe.hosting4u.net > To: > > Your message could not be delivered to the following addresses: > : BAD SEQUENCE OF COMMANDS (from aol.com:205.188.157.5) > : BAD SEQUENCE OF COMMANDS (from aol.com:205.188.157.5) > : BAD SEQUENCE OF COMMANDS (from aol.com:205.188.157.5) > : BAD SEQUENCE OF COMMANDS (from aol.com:205.188.157.5) > : BAD SEQUENCE OF COMMANDS (from aol.com:205.188.157.5) > : BAD SEQUENCE OF COMMANDS (from aol.com:205.188.157.5) > > Reporting-MTA: dns; phoebe.hosting4u.net Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 22 18:43:06 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA17523; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:39:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.rdc1.az.home.com (ha1.rdc1.az.home.com [24.1.240.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id SAA17516 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:39:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from home.com ([24.1.251.121]) by mail.rdc1.az.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <19991123024322.LRZW9546.mail.rdc1.az.home.com@home.com>; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:43:22 -0800 Message-ID: <3839FE4C.62B091ED@home.com> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 19:39:08 -0700 From: Kim Granieri Organization: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RockPages=2Eorg=99?= X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John R Levine CC: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL error messages...help! (please?) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk John R Levine wrote: > I suspect it means that there's something wacky with your ISP's mail transfer > agent. That's not majordomo, it appears to be something called DSMTP, from a > company in New Zealand that makes a popular (but unrelated) product called DNEWS. > > I had no trouble provoking that error message when I connected to AOL's server > and tried sending mail commands out of the standard order. Thank you John...I did misspeak however...I am using MD through my web host rather than my ISP. Does this mean that THEY are using a "wacky mail transfer agent"? No one else using MD at the web host seems to be having the same problem. And if you are talking about my ISP regardless, this only happens occasionally. To my knowledge, I have changed nothing in the config since the last successful mailing to the list. Also, where are you finding the reference to DSMTP? Where can I find the same reference? Or know that it's being used? One more question...By "out of the standard order" -- what do you mean? Can you give me an example? Is it something in the config, or something intrinsic to my mail program? Or is it invoked only through the AOL server? Thank you for your help. kim From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 22 21:28:09 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA19000; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 21:17:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from bp.ucs.usl.edu (bp.ucs.usl.edu [130.70.40.36]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA18993 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 21:17:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from usl.edu (isb9112.usl.edu [130.70.65.242]) by bp.ucs.usl.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1/ucs-server_1.3) with ESMTP id XAA02818 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 23:21:48 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <383A24A0.B9A8A144@usl.edu> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 23:22:40 -0600 From: Istvan Berkeley Organization: Philosophy, USL X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Irony Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi there, As has been noted AD HOMINEM attacks are none to helpful. They also constitute an instance of fallacious reasoning (see http://www.fallacies.org for details). Having run a few lists in my time, there are two things which are bad for the health of a list: (1) Flame wars (2) Discussions of what is and is not appropriate on a list It is ironic that list-managers should exhibit these symptoms. Please folks, be nasty to each other all you wish, but do it in private. I have a whole bunch of "Mail Delivery Errors" also polluting my inbox. They are almost as interesting as the current slug fest. Let us not, as list managers degenerate into the kind of behaviour which we have to chastise subscribers for. Hmm, maybe one of our protagonists is an AOL plant... ;) All the best, Istvan -- Istvan S. N. Berkeley, Ph.D. Philosophy & Cognitive Science E-mail: istvan@usl.edu The University of Louisiana at Lafayette [Formerly, The University of Southwestern Louisiana] P.O. Box 43770 Tel: +1 318 482-6807 Lafayette, LA 70504-3770 Fax: +1 318 482-6195 USA http://www.ucs.usl.edu/~isb9112 From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 23 09:57:27 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA28459; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 09:52:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA28452 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 09:52:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from oemcomputer (pool0535.cvx31-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net [209.179.148.25]) by snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA02134 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 09:56:25 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <004c01bf35dc$3de41be0$1994b3d1@oemcomputer> From: "Sam Brooks" To: "List Managers" Subject: Lyris Server Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 09:57:42 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi, Anybody have any admin experience with the Lyris List Server Package. Please respond off-list. TIA Sam Brooks sbrooks@earthlink.net From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 23 12:41:52 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA29822; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 12:01:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA29815 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 12:01:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA27564 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 12:04:44 -0800 (PST) To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: What is list-managers? (was Re: AOL dropping mail In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 22 Nov 1999 13:49:43 -0800. Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 12:04:44 -0800 Message-ID: <27562.943387484@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >At 12:25 PM -0800 11/22/99, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > >> Ah... excuse me Chuq, but if you can make an effort to try to see past >> your personal animosity ... > >Sorry, Ronald. But the various discussions we've had in the past in >public and private have made that impossible. While I personally >don't believe in keeping grudges and in trying to leave personalities >out of the discussions, but you've badgered and attacked me enough >times that you've joined the small list of people for whom I'll make >an exception of my no-grudge rule. Well, you get full points for honesty anyway. And like everyone, you're entitled to your grudges. I just happen to think that List-Managers is not really the best place for venting them. >> This is obviously a reasonable topic for discussion among mailing >> administrators (who have a legitimate concern about this) and thus, >> a reasonable topic for discussion here on List-Managers. > >Yes, and it was immediately bludgeoned into uselessness by a couple >of people who took advantage of the discussion to (once again) get up >on their bully pulpit, and (once again) tell us how AOL sucks. I agree that those postings contained, by and large, more heat than light, but again, if you'll just look past your personal animosity for a moment, you may notice that *I* was certainly NOT among the ``couple of people'' who were ranting about how AOL sucks. Rather, I am among the people who recognize that they (AOL) have a problem, i.e. trying to stop spam while NOT improperly throwing overboard any mail from legitimate opt-in mailing lists, and that this is a problem which a LOT of people... including many on this list... have in common with them (AOL). I tried my best to turn what did indeed start out as a pure rant against AOL (by one or two other people) into a reasonable discussion about this widespread and common problem and about how we might all work together to solve it. I'm sorry if my meager effort to derive something fruitful from the initial AOL diatribe offended you, but a couple of us, at least were indeed having an interesting discussion about the challenging problem of separating opt-in mailing list traffic from opt-out mailing list traffic. >Tell me, what did all of the screaming and whining and bitching about AOL >do to actually solve anything? Nothing. I am in complete agreement with you that venomous distribes about AOL are not fruitful, and if you look back just a day or two in the archives for this list, you may notice that I even said exactly that. >All it did was make most of us just >leave the discussion out of disgust. Well, but you see, you _didn't_ actually leave. You _could_ have just waited quietly for the AOL ranting to subside... as it would inevitably do if no one paid any attention to it... but instead you saw fit to launch your own equally off-topic counter-rant about which specific List-Managers members annoy you. OK, so now everybody knows which specific members of List-Managers annoy Chuq. Thanks for contributing to the List-Managers mailing list. From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 23 21:56:52 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA05090; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 21:00:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id VAA05062 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 21:00:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from izzy6.izzy.net (izzy6.izzy.net [206.84.176.178]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id EAA09206 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 04:57:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by izzy6.izzy.net (8.9.2/8.9.3) id IAA01042 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 08:01:28 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: izzy6.izzy.net: UUatbbs set sender to dbsmith@atbbs.com using -f >Received: by atbbs.com (0.99.970109) id AA05142; 22 Nov 99 08:00:30 -0500 From: dbsmith@atbbs.com (David B. Smith) Date: 21 Nov 99 19:28:38 -0500 Subject: AOL dropping mail Message-ID: Organization: American Tune BBS, Ypsilanti Twp MI To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi, Chuq. I noticed you saying to All: CVR> I find it fascinating to watch people tell other folks how easy it is CVR> to do their job right, myself. I wonder how many people on this list CVR> could begin to architect AOL's system, much less build one that CVR> didn't implode in the first three minutes. More or less off-topic, I Feel Your Pain here. In my job, I occasionally have people say, "No, Dave doesn't need any extra help. After all, single individuals have done all of the work in that job before -- and they didn't even have a computer!" Which is quite true, they could do all the work alone. Heck, _I_ used to do all the work alone, before I had the computer, and the fax machine, and the copier with the multi-copy feeder & what-all. But after I got alla the new technology put in there, after I got things set up to handle more volume faster, it became impossible, -because- of all the new tech. The volume of production and speed of production and the new features, like the ability to track all of the paperwork I handle, went from being a luxury to being a necessity, just because it's there now. People -expect- more stuff done faster, because I've -always- done more stuff faster. If I went back to a system I could -really- handle alone, they'd complain about that, too. As for AOL's system, well, I think you've both got points. On the one hand, a system the size of AOL is a whole 'nother phenomenon entirely. It can't be done just-the-same-but-bigger, because the shear volume makes it not just-the-same. On the other hand, the offer for which they accepted money was "Internet email" et-al, and the acceptance was of those services as they had been done. And the rest of the providers on the net -didn't- overcommit their resources as AOL did. So -their- product quality shouldn't be reduced, just because AOL got too big and stepped on their, um, shoelaces. On the gripping hand, I am not aware of any mechanism to reliably and consistently test email service to determine if AOL's service is pound-for-pound really any worse than (or better than) anyone else's service. It may really be no worse per capita than any other service. But it may -appear- worse, because they're one of the few operating at a large enough scale for the problems to be apparent. On that issue, I note that I have never used AOL myself. I've been using CompuServe for many years, because it was consistently reliable. Then they got bought by AOL. Then their reliability went down the toilet, from my perception. YMMV. ... Answers: $1, Short: $5, Correct: $25, dumb looks are still free. -- >> Sysop, American Tune BBS | DISCLAIMER: Hey, I -own- the place! >> Anyway, my views are sometimes not even my own, much less anyone else's. From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 23 22:11:52 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA05197; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 21:02:41 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id VAA05186 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 21:02:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA18482 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 20:35:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from solva.ifi.uio.no (1368@solva.ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.20]) by ifi.uio.no (8.8.8/8.8.7/ifi0.2) with SMTP id FAA02078; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 05:39:48 +0100 (MET) Received: (from thomasg@localhost) by solva.ifi.uio.no ; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 05:39:48 +0100 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 05:39:47 +0100 From: Thomas Gramstad Reply-To: thomasg@ifi.uio.no To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Onelist.com allows forced subscriptions and spamming Message-ID: Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Twice the last month the same individual, genesis triumph , has added me to his Onelist.com mailing lists, without my consent and knowledge, apparently getting my address from some semi-public list of Onelist.com list owners. (I don't use Onelist.com as a base for my mailing lists; I'm just testing it out with a couple of small lists that I presently have there.) Now, it's bad enough that this individual continues to do this (though I'll soon find out what his ISP thinks about this). But, much worse, Onelist.com doesn't seem to care at all. I've written several complaints (they are appended below), and I get absolutely no response at all, even though this is a blatant violation not only of common Internet standards and policies against spamming, but of their own stated policies. I can only conclude that Onelist.com doesn't care, or perhaps they even support this spamming. Which leads to some questions: If Onelist.com acts against its own stated policies, doesn't that mean that they cannot be trusted at all? If Onelist.com supports spamming, or doesn't do anything to protect its users from spamming, then shouldn't it be added to lists over spam sites? Shouldn't Onelist.com be blacklisted? Have other people here tried Onelist.com, and experienced the same? Thomas Gramstad thomasg@ifi.uio.no ------------------ 1) 25-Oct Thomas Grams Re: What is this? (4052 chars) 2) 3-Nov Thomas Grams Spam complaint (3404 chars) 3) 3-Nov Thomas Grams [genesis triumph Received: from solva.ifi.uio.no (1368@solva.ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.20]) by ifi.uio.no (8.8.8/8.8.7/ifi0.2) with SMTP id OAA21618; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 14:54:26 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from thomasg@localhost) by solva.ifi.uio.no ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 14:54:24 +0200 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 14:54:22 +0200 From: Thomas Gramstad Reply-To: thomasg@ifi.uio.no To: genesis triumph Subject: Re: What is this? In-Reply-To: genesis triumph 's message of Sat, 23 Oct 1999 03:06:13 +0500 References: <380E2554.A2791BB4@inet.com.pk> <3810DFD5.83B727B9@inet.com.pk> Cc: admin@onelist.com Message-ID: To admin@onelist.com: I'm hereby complaining about being placed on a list called frostfree@onelist.com without my consent or knowledge. Please see below for details. Thomas Gramstad thomasg@ifi.uio.no ------------------ genesis triumph wrote: > First off, this was not a spam attempt at all. I > recieved your email address from the web form, which as you > might know, can be accessed by anyone and anyone can place your > address in the box and hit subscribe. I'm not following you. What web form? Are you saying that the e-mail addresses of all list moderators at onelist.com -- or even all subscribers -- are publically available? And that you placed all addresses thus available on your list without asking them? > This can be my fault, but onelist's system doesnot offer email > confirmation Yes, it does, and not only that, but it warns you strongly not to subscribe people without their consent, warning you that doing so will lead to Onelist closing down your community and kicking you off their system. I find it very hard to beileve that a sincere list moderator cannot be aware of this. In fact, I suspect that you deliberately violated Onelist.com's policy. Therefore I cc admin@onelist.com on this message. If I misunderstood you, surely they can clear it up; and if I'm right about my suspicions, they can take the appropriate action. Thomas Gramstad thomasg@ifi.uio.no > and I am working on this with onelist admins to add confirmation > because you are not the only one who have this kind of > complaint. We recieved around 5 complaints concerning automation > of subscription without there concern. I appologize for the mess > that has caused you and wish you can understand that. My web > form was made unacceptable on my request after recieving a few > complaints from users. Please ask any further questions that > might help you get out of this trouble. > > Unsubscribe: peracha-unsubscribe@onelist.com > > Thank you > Genesis > Team Peracha > > Thomas Gramstad wrote: > > > This answer is not good enough. I'm considering complaining to > > the admin at Onelist.com about being placed on a mailing list by > > strangers without having been asked. This is an abominable > > practice -- I manage 20-30 lists myself and I will do what I can > > and what I deem necessary to put an end to that practice. Telling > > me that I can unsubscribe myself is not an answer. I'll give you > > one more chance to answer before I make the complaint: Where did > > you get my address from? Why did you add me to the list? > > > > Thomas Gramstad > > thomasg@ifi.uio.no > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > This is no spam attempt at all. This list is safe and > > > you or some of your friends may have subscribed with that > > > address. This list is only for fun chat. If you are not > > > interested in joining, please send an empty email to > > > frostfree-unsubscribe@onelist.com > > > > > > Thank you > > > Genesis > > > > > > Thomas Gramstad wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > What is this list? Who is behind it? Why have I been placed on > > > > it without being asked? > > > > > > > > Is this some spam attempt? > > > > > > > > Thomas Gramstad > > > > thomas@gramstad.no Message 2 -- ********************* Return-Path: Received: from solva.ifi.uio.no (1368@solva.ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.20]) by ifi.uio.no (8.8.8/8.8.7/ifi0.2) with SMTP id NAA08058; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:00:27 +0100 (MET) Received: (from thomasg@localhost) by solva.ifi.uio.no ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:00:27 +0100 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:00:26 +0100 From: Thomas Gramstad Reply-To: thomasg@ifi.uio.no To: admin@onelist.com Cc: peracha-owner@onelist.com Subject: Spam complaint Message-ID: This is the second time the last two weeks where I have been added to a onelist mailing list without my consent, and without being asked. What is Onelist going to do to correct this situation? If this continues, I will withdraw my own mailing lists from onelist.com, and suggest in various mailing list managers fora that onelist.com be boycotted and blacklisted as spammers. Regards, Thomas Gramstad thomasg@ifi.uio.no ------------------ --------------- Return-Path: Received: from mail.powertech.no (intentia.powertech.no [195.159.0.220]) by ifi.uio.no (8.8.8/8.8.7/ifi0.2) with ESMTP id AAA10508 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 00:11:49 +0100 (MET) Received: from onelist.com (www.onelist.com [209.207.164.201]) by mail.powertech.no (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA09784 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 00:11:48 +0100 Received: (qmail 30162 invoked by uid 99); 2 Nov 1999 23:11:20 -0000 Date: 2 Nov 1999 23:11:20 -0000 Message-ID: <941584280.30113@onelist.com> To: thomas@gramstad.no Subject: You have been added to peracha@onelist.com From: ONElist Mailing-List: list confirm@onelist.com; contact http://www.onelist.com Hello, This is the ONElist Communities service. You have been added by the moderators to the following community: peracha One of the most brilliantly written weekly Windows 95 / 98 / NT / 2000 ezine, direct from the editor of Kufic Internet Magazine in HTML format. Peracha weekly newsletter provides the best news and information on the internet along with the hotest and latest applications, updates, reviews, links and much more. Jump start your week with Peracha Weekly Windows Newsletter. Email Address: thomas@gramstad.no Password: ******** Here is a welcome message provided by the community moderators: ------------- From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 24 01:43:15 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id BAA08522; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 01:30:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.rdc1.wa.home.com (ha1.rdc1.wa.home.com [24.0.2.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id BAA08515 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 01:29:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from c542443-a ([24.9.50.49]) by mail.rdc1.wa.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <19991124093422.ROZQ22653.mail.rdc1.wa.home.com@c542443-a> for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 01:34:22 -0800 Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991124011920.00982b20@mail.fedwy1.wa.home.com> X-Sender: carriejl@mail.fedwy1.wa.home.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 01:33:36 -0800 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Carrie Lybecker Subject: Re: Onelist.com allows forced subscriptions and spamming In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 05:39 AM 11/23/99 +0100, you wrote: >But, much worse, Onelist.com doesn't seem to care at all. No, they don't. > I've >written several complaints (they are appended below), and I get >absolutely no response at all, No, they don't respond to complaints. Should you persist via phone, you will find that they still don't care (the person I have spoken with on several occasions was Shana). >even though this is a blatant >violation not only of common Internet standards and policies >against spamming, but of their own stated policies. Yes, they violate their own written policies while denying that. > I can only >conclude that Onelist.com doesn't care, or perhaps they even >support this spamming. > >If Onelist.com acts against its own stated policies, doesn't that >mean that they cannot be trusted at all? Seems reasonable. >If Onelist.com supports spamming, or doesn't do anything to >protect its users from spamming, then shouldn't it be added to >lists over spam sites? Seems reasonable. >Shouldn't Onelist.com be blacklisted? The only thing I have to add to this is that many people don't have a viable alternative that I am aware of. Please tell me otherwise. >Have other people here tried Onelist.com, and experienced the >same? Answered that I think. >Thomas Gramstad >thomasg@ifi.uio.no Carrie Lybecker From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 24 04:18:21 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id DAA11894; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 03:59:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from godai.maison-otaku.net (godai.maison-otaku.net [216.122.4.241]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id DAA11887 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 03:59:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (loki@localhost) by godai.maison-otaku.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA05940; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 04:03:33 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: godai.maison-otaku.net: loki owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 04:03:32 -0800 (PST) From: Jeremy Blackman To: Carrie Lybecker cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Onelist.com allows forced subscriptions and spamming In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19991124011920.00982b20@mail.fedwy1.wa.home.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, 24 Nov 1999, Carrie Lybecker wrote: > >Shouldn't Onelist.com be blacklisted? > > The only thing I have to add to this is that many people don't have a > viable alternative that I am aware of. Please tell me otherwise. eGroups, to name one. And that's not counting smaller or less-well-known mailing list hosting services. As far as I'm aware, Onelist doesn't offer anything unique that isn't offered by similar (and slightly more responsible) services. -- Jeremy Blackman - loki@maison-otaku.net / loki@listar.org / jeremy@lith.com Lithtech Team, Monolith Productions -- http://www.lith.com Listar Developer -- http://www.listar.org From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 24 07:01:14 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA13522; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 06:50:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mercury.rev.net (mercury.rev.net [206.67.68.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA13515 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 06:50:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from bernie.rev.net (admin2.rev.net [12.26.100.205]) by mercury.rev.net (8.10.0.Beta6/8.10.0.Beta6) with ESMTP id dAOEsVD08226 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 09:54:31 -0500 Message-Id: <199911241454.dAOEsVD08226@mercury.rev.net> From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 09:56:12 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: AOL dropping mail Reply-to: bernie@fantasyfarm.com In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 21 Nov 99, at 19:28, David B. Smith wrote: > I noticed you saying to All: > > CVR> I find it fascinating to watch people tell other folks how easy it is > CVR> to do their job right, myself. I wonder how many people on this list > CVR> could begin to architect AOL's system, much less build one that > CVR> didn't implode in the first three minutes. [...] > As for AOL's system, well, I think you've both got points. On the one > hand, a system the size of AOL is a whole 'nother phenomenon entirely. > It can't be done just-the-same-but-bigger, because the shear volume > makes it not just-the-same. > > On the other hand, the offer for which they accepted money was "Internet > email" et-al, and the acceptance was of those services as they had been > done. And the rest of the providers on the net -didn't- overcommit > their resources as AOL did. This isn't quite correct. That's one of the reasons why 'spam' has caused so much trouble for ISPs: not because it is so hard for users to filter spam out of their mailboxes [although AOL folk with truly-crippled mail clients might disagree.:o), but for the rest, you can eliminate almost all of the stuff with modest filtering in Eudora, Peagsus, Communicator, etc] but because that volume of email *crashed* servers [and they'd talk about considering spam a "denial of service attack"] when the fact is just that they *NEVER* configured their system to give their users what they claimed and had always been counting on the fact that users didn't get giant amounts of mail. [same as with things like 'melissa' and such: they *crashed* mail servers all around the net not because they exploited some malicious flaw in mail server, but because the mail servers couldn't handle every user getting a few hundred messages all at the same time... that could well have been legitimate mail, and the only difference is that the sysops wouldn't have had anyone to blame].. /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 24 11:11:56 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA16247; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 11:02:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.rdc1.wa.home.com (ha1.rdc1.wa.home.com [24.0.2.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA16234 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 11:02:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from c542443-a ([24.9.50.49]) by mail.rdc1.wa.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <19991124190650.WKWD22653.mail.rdc1.wa.home.com@c542443-a> for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 11:06:50 -0800 Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991124110312.0098da00@mail.fedwy1.wa.home.com> X-Sender: carriejl@mail.fedwy1.wa.home.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 11:06:35 -0800 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Carrie Lybecker Subject: Re: Onelist.com allows forced subscriptions and spamming In-Reply-To: References: <4.2.0.58.19991124011920.00982b20@mail.fedwy1.wa.home.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 04:03 AM 11/24/99 -0800, you wrote: >On Wed, 24 Nov 1999, Carrie Lybecker wrote: > > > The only thing I have to add to this is that many people don't have a > > viable alternative that I am aware of. Please tell me otherwise. > >eGroups, to name one. And that's not counting smaller or less-well-known >mailing list hosting services. As far as I'm aware, Onelist doesn't offer >anything unique that isn't offered by similar (and slightly more >responsible) services. That's the problem. Slightly. Actually, my experience with eGroups was worse since I was never able to reach them on the phone at all, and never received any email responses. Carrie Lybecker From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 24 14:27:02 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA18035; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 14:22:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp2.vnet.net (smtp2.vnet.net [166.82.1.32]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA18028 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 14:22:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net (katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by smtp2.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA24655 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 17:27:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA09772 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 17:27:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 17:27:09 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: List Service Providers In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19991124110312.0098da00@mail.fedwy1.wa.home.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Brian Edmonds maintains a list of mailing list service providers. - http://www.gweep.bc.ca/~edmonds/usenet/ml-providers.html - send email to majordomo@gweep.bc.ca with the following line in the body of the message: get faq ml-providers.txt Contact: Brian Edmonds Vivian Neou maintains a similar list of host sites along with additional useful information about mailing lists such as her venerable "List of Lists" and a web page describing various mailing list software packages. - http://www.catalog.com/vivian/ Contact: Vivian Neou Cleo Kiernan at Interspeed Net maintains an unoffical listowner guide which includes a page of mailing list service providers and various mailing list related links at: - http://angus.interspeed.net/listowner/provide.html Contact: Cleo Kiernan The list host providers offer very wide range of services including: discussion lists, announcement lists, digests, archiving, web interfaced search engines, full-service list management, etc. Prices for hosting services range from free, with ads appended to posts, to hundreds of dollars a month. Prices vary with number of subscribers, traffic volume, added features and the level of service. To have your mailing list host services listed on these pages, contact the the folks who maintain the lists at the addresses listed above. - murr - From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 24 17:42:01 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA19596; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 17:36:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from antiochus-fe0.ultra.net (antiochus-fe0.ultra.net [146.115.8.188]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA19589 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 17:36:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from voyager (d23.dial-1.cmb.ma.ultra.net [209.6.64.23]) by antiochus-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult/n20340/mtc.v2) with SMTP id UAA02280; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 20:28:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19991125012855.00be05d0@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, 24 Nov 1999 20:28:55 -0500 To: Jeremy Blackman From: Stan Ryckman Subject: Re: Onelist.com allows forced subscriptions and spamming Cc: Carrie Lybecker , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 04:03 AM 11/24/99 -0800, Jeremy Blackman wrote: >On Wed, 24 Nov 1999, Carrie Lybecker wrote: > >> >Shouldn't Onelist.com be blacklisted? >> >> The only thing I have to add to this is that many people don't have a >> viable alternative that I am aware of. Please tell me otherwise. > >eGroups, to name one. Well, eGroups and onelist just recently announced a merger. Cheers, Stan From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 24 18:27:33 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA19890; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 18:12:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell7.ba.best.com (shell7.ba.best.com [206.184.139.138]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id SAA19883 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 18:12:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from cnorman@localhost) by shell7.ba.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.sh) id SAA21554; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 18:17:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 18:17:20 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199911250217.SAA21554@shell7.ba.best.com> From: Cyndi Norman CC: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, cnorman@best.com In-reply-to: <2.2.32.19991125012855.00be05d0@pop.ma.ultranet.com> (message from Stan Ryckman on Wed, 24 Nov 1999 20:28:55 -0500) Subject: Re: Onelist.com allows forced subscriptions and spamming Reply-to: cnorman@best.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 20:28:55 -0500 From: Stan Ryckman Well, eGroups and onelist just recently announced a merger. Just as well...makes them easier to avoid. Onelist is spamer haven and egroups has a policy of owning the copyright (if it holds up in court) to all posts. Cyndi -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cyndi@consultclarity.com http://www.consultclarity.com/ _________________ Owner of the Immune Website & Lists http://www.immuneweb.org/ From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 24 21:26:55 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA21417; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 21:15:17 -0800 (PST) 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 VAA21408 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 21:15:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from twp@localhost) by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA04179; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 00:17:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 00:17:34 -0500 From: Tim Pierce To: Carrie Lybecker Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Onelist.com allows forced subscriptions and spamming Message-ID: <19991125001734.A3812@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <4.2.0.58.19991124011920.00982b20@mail.fedwy1.wa.home.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.7us In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19991124011920.00982b20@mail.fedwy1.wa.home.com> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, Nov 24, 1999 at 01:33:36AM -0800, Carrie Lybecker wrote: > > >Shouldn't Onelist.com be blacklisted? > > The only thing I have to add to this is that many people don't have a > viable alternative that I am aware of. Please tell me otherwise. RootsWeb hosts free mailing lists. Anyone who is concerned about OneList's stance on spam is welcome to propose a list at RootsWeb: see http://cgi.rootsweb.com/~genbbs/genbbs.cgi/Communities/Volunteers/ to propose a new list. -- Regards, Tim Pierce RootsWeb.com lead system admonsterator and Chief Hacking Officer From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 25 09:02:21 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA29594; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 08:46:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from onelist.com (www.onelist.com [209.207.164.157]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id IAA29587 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 08:46:13 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 30654 invoked from network); 25 Nov 1999 16:31:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO corp.onelist.com) (206.184.132.144) by www.onelist.com with SMTP; 25 Nov 1999 16:31:17 -0000 Message-ID: <383D6373.C16AC5A0@corp.onelist.com> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 08:27:31 -0800 From: Mark Fletcher X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, thomasg@ifi.uio.no, kate@corp.onelist.com Subject: Re: Onelist.com allows forced subscriptions and spamming References: <199911240900.BAA07416@honor.greatcircle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 05:39:47 +0100 > From: Thomas Gramstad > Subject: Onelist.com allows forced subscriptions and spamming > > Twice the last month the same individual, genesis triumph > , has added me to his Onelist.com mailing > lists, without my consent and knowledge, apparently getting my > address from some semi-public list of Onelist.com list owners. > (I don't use Onelist.com as a base for my mailing lists; I'm just > testing it out with a couple of small lists that I presently have > there.) Now, it's bad enough that this individual continues to do > this (though I'll soon find out what his ISP thinks about this). > > But, much worse, Onelist.com doesn't seem to care at all. > This is absolutely not true. We have a dedicated customer support group that answers all emails sent to us within the day(during business days/most weekends). I am not sure why your situation was not rectified to your satisfaction; I'm CC'ing Kate Shambarger, our director of customer support. Being that it's Thanksgiving, she won't be able to look at it today, but it will be rectified before the end of the weekend. Mark -- Mark Fletcher ONElist, Inc. markf@corp.onelist.com From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 25 13:15:40 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA01657; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 13:07:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.rdc1.wa.home.com (ha1.rdc1.wa.home.com [24.0.2.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA01650 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 13:07:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from c542443-a ([24.9.50.49]) by mail.rdc1.wa.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <19991125211205.IVPZ22653.mail.rdc1.wa.home.com@c542443-a> for ; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 13:12:05 -0800 Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991125125903.009a0a00@mail.fedwy1.wa.home.com> X-Sender: carriejl@mail.fedwy1.wa.home.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 13:11:48 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Carrie Lybecker Subject: Re: Onelist.com allows forced subscriptions and spamming In-Reply-To: <383D6373.C16AC5A0@corp.onelist.com> References: <199911240900.BAA07416@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 08:27 AM 11/25/99 -0800, you wrote: > > Twice the last month the same individual, genesis triumph > > , has added me to his Onelist.com mailing > > lists, without my consent and knowledge, apparently getting my > > address from some semi-public list of Onelist.com list owners. > > (I don't use Onelist.com as a base for my mailing lists; I'm just > > testing it out with a couple of small lists that I presently have > > there.) Now, it's bad enough that this individual continues to do > > this (though I'll soon find out what his ISP thinks about this). > > > > But, much worse, Onelist.com doesn't seem to care at all. > > > >This is absolutely not true. We have a dedicated customer support group >that answers all emails sent to us within the day(during business >days/most weekends). I am not sure why your situation was not rectified >to your satisfaction; I'm CC'ing Kate Shambarger, our director of >customer support. Being that it's Thanksgiving, she won't be able to >look at it today, but it will be rectified before the end of the >weekend. > > >Mark >-- >Mark Fletcher >ONElist, Inc. >markf@corp.onelist.com Dear Mark: I'm not sure exactly which thing you are saying is untrue. I have had at least three instances since August in which I wrote to Onelist with serious questions which were not answered. In one case I received no reply at all. In another I received a form "thank you for your question" response but never an answer to the question. In another instance, after my second email I received a reply from Shana that did not answer my question. So I called. I was very unhappy with her attitude and with the fact that my concerns were not resolved. I wrote and asked for the telephone number of the administrative offices. I was given the number for support instead. I finally received the correct number via email from Shana. Lastly, I had a very serious situation with harassment and abuse that was so poorly handled by Onelist that there is no way I could recommend Onelist to anyone, and I am looking for another service. Carrie Lybecker From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 26 23:27:40 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA20067; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 23:16:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.143.206.18]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id XAA20060 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 23:16:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from tpad.squawk.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id CAA09495; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 02:21:23 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991127021428.03bd6970@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 02:14:28 -0500 To: Chuq Von Rospach From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: What is list-managers? (was Re: AOL dropping mail Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.19991122154218.03598e80@127.0.0.1> <3.0.5.32.19991122103459.033aa630@127.0.0.1> <3.0.5.32.19991122103459.033aa630@127.0.0.1> <3.0.5.32.19991122154218.03598e80@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:54 PM 11/22/99 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >At 3:42 PM -0500 11/22/99, Nick Simicich wrote: > >> And everything that does meet your standards is right? > >nope. > >> Chuq, other than this AOL thing, what is it you have said that I have >> disagreed with that is so discouraging to you? > >well, the AOL thing is more than enough, but we've gone into it a few >times. Twice? Where I was involved, anyway. > Rich and I tend to disagree a lot, but when you rip into me, >it always comes across as blindly negative and very personal. Let's try this again, Chuq: 1. You took it personal with your comments about it being amusing to watch people discuss things that they couldn't possibly understand. By the way, I have worked on problems on that scale and participated in the design of solutions that scaled to the needs. 2. I posted an entire count of my postings to this list by topic. Your statement that I have attacked you repeatedly really has not a shred of truth to it. Chuq, once again, I've posted my list of postings. Your repeatedly asserting this claim that you are under constant attack, by me, anyway, does not raise it from the realm of Chuq's delusions to truth. There have been two (2) exchanges on AOL, both prompted by the problems that their irresponsible design causes list owners. >> I've posted a fair bit on topica. > >Oh, yeah. That was one of the other ones where you did your best Eeyore. I don't apologize for attacking spam or spammers. If that makes me an eeyore, I'll wear the label proudly. Now, if you were on the other side of the argument, well, you chose to be and you chose your company. >>>If Ronald is the list troll, you're the list Eeyore. >> >> And you are the ancient wisdom of the list, the ultimate arbiter in all >> matters? I just want to get the titles right here so that I can show all >> due respect. > >Didn't you listen to anything I said in my last post? Hell, no. I listed to everything you said, and read it more than once, trying to figure out what you were saying. Basically you were and still are throwing a juvenile tantrum. "I'll take my ball and bat and go home." >that's not what I said. Read your postings again, oh mighty Chuq. >If the lst prefers you and Ronald around, >well, I'll happily leave. But it ain't up to me. Or you. Or ronald. I >don't pretend it is. Look, Chuq. You want to leave the list, do so. Throwing a tantrum as you do so is infantile. Are you trying to get the rest of the list to kick me and/or Ronald off? >> The point is that I'm not lashing out at anything I see. > >Or that you don't recognize it as such. Or that there is simply no evidence of me doing so because I haven't. You can't produce the postings because they simply are not there. I relly went over that list of postings to see if I might be wrong in my own impressions. I've "lashed out" at AOL's stupid mail policies and at Topica's Spamming. If there are only two things I can see, then I'm nearly blind. But I've been in many more than two discussions on this list. Was I lashing out during all of those? I don't think so... >> I am lashing out >> at laughable ideas. > >Um, well. Oh, hell. Looking at what you just said, there's such a >disconnect in how things are viewed I won't waste electrons any >further. I don't for a second disbelieve you honestly feel that way, >and as such, I simply don't think it's worth wasting either of our >time looking for common ground to discuss this with. There is none. Chuq, ignoring the last exchange, you have made statements of fact (not opinion) about what has gone before which are simply not true. I ask for a public apology. This is not looking for common ground, it is simply asking for an accurate recounting of the past. I don't care to have you apologize for your perceptions of me or my actions, nor will I apologize to you for mine. But either admit that in Chuqbonics, twice is all the time and two is everything, or apologize for getting it wrong. And if you got the count that wrong, maybe you need to rethink your perceptions. -- The thing I like most about chat rooms is that people assume that you are human. Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice) mailto:njs@us.ibm.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 26 23:42:06 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA20195; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 23:31:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.143.206.18]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id XAA20188 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 23:31:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from tpad.squawk.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id CAA09746; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 02:36:20 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991127022347.03bea150@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 02:23:47 -0500 To: Chuq Von Rospach From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: What is list-managers? (was Re: AOL dropping mail Cc: "Ronald F. Guilmette" , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: References: <24083.943302355@monkeys.com> <24083.943302355@monkeys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 01:49 PM 11/22/99 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >Yes, and it was immediately bludgeoned into uselessness by a couple >of people who took advantage of the discussion to (once again) get up >on their bully pulpit, and (once again) tell us how AOL sucks. Tell >me, what did all of the screaming and whining and bitching about AOL >do to actually solve anything? All it did was make most of us just >leave the discussion out of disgust. Actually, Chuq, the first part (where it was simple AOL factual bashing, before you took it personal) helped the list owner with the problem understand it well enough that she was able to aggressively pursue AOL for help and a fix. -- Do you have 10 years experience? Or one month's experience repeated 120 times? Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice) mailto:njs@us.ibm.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Sat Nov 27 00:27:07 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id AAA20532; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 00:12:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.143.206.18]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id AAA20522 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 00:12:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from tpad.squawk.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id DAA10719 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 03:17:32 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991127025034.033cf220@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 02:50:34 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Nick Simicich Subject: Apology Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I apologize to the list for continuing the AOL issue/Chuq after the list owner requested that we cease. My only excuse is that I responded to mail in the order it arrived in my mailbox. -- A man was attacked and left bleeding in a ditch. Two sociologists passed by and one said to the other, "We must find the man who did this - he needs help." Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice) mailto:njs@us.ibm.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Sat Nov 27 01:58:31 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id BAA22188; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 01:50:59 -0800 (PST) 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 BAA22181 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 01:50:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (from twp@localhost) by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA09426; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 04:55:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 04:55:08 -0500 From: Tim Pierce To: Nick Simicich Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: What is list-managers? (was Re: AOL dropping mail Message-ID: <19991127045508.G5464@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19991122154218.03598e80@127.0.0.1> <3.0.5.32.19991122103459.033aa630@127.0.0.1> <3.0.5.32.19991122103459.033aa630@127.0.0.1> <3.0.5.32.19991122154218.03598e80@127.0.0.1> <3.0.5.32.19991127021428.03bd6970@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.7us In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19991127021428.03bd6970@127.0.0.1> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I know you are, but what am I? -- Regards, Tim Pierce RootsWeb.com lead system admonsterator and Chief Hacking Officer From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 28 20:00:38 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA14714; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 19:53:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from Kitten.mcs.com (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA14707 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 19:53:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from Mercury.mcs.net (dattier@Mercury.mcs.net [192.160.127.80]) by Kitten.mcs.com (8.8.7/8.8.2) with ESMTP id VAA10508 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 21:58:44 -0600 (CST) Received: (from dattier@localhost) by Mercury.mcs.net (8.9.3/8.8.2) id VAA19579 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 21:58:44 -0600 (CST) From: "David W. Tamkin" Message-Id: <199911290358.VAA19579@Mercury.mcs.net> Subject: qmail/ezmlm vs. BigMailBox To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 21:58:44 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Here's one battle I want to watch from very far away. ezmlm and some other list packages that use qmail as their MTA send all posts and digests out with a VERP that includes -recipient=domain.of.recipient and confirmation requests for joining and quitting with reply addresses that likewise include equal signs. It has just come to light today that webmail accounts on sites that run BigMailBox will not accept equal signs in outgoing addresses, considering them illegal. So users of such systems cannot confirm their attempts to join such a list, or, if they got on some other way, they cannot confirm their attempts to leave it. Also, I'd guess that list distributions to closed, renamed, or over-quota accounts on such sites aren't bounced back, because the mailer-daemon probably can't write to an address with an equal sign either. BMB software is free to webmasters in return for carrying ads on their sites for advertisers who buy space from BMB, and the sites themselves get a cut of the advertising revenue. At least two of my webmail accounts run BMB. (BMB does allow hyphens, periods, plus signs, ampersands, apostrophes, pipes, and underscores. What the sense is in allowing ampersands and pipes, I can't guess; there is a risk that it may be given unquoted to a shell prompt or shell script at the other end. Meanwhile, if ever I have to send a suffixed Reply-To: address to what could be a BigMailBox site, I suppose a pipe or an ampersand could substitute for the usual equal sign.) Somebody is wrong here. and I've a feeling it isn't the qmail people. From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 28 21:41:58 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA15582; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 21:41:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from CU.NIH.GOV (cu.nih.gov [128.231.160.111]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id VAA15575 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 21:41:42 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199911290541.VAA15575@honor.greatcircle.com> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: "Roger Fajman" Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:45:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: qmail/ezmlm vs. BigMailBox Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Here's one battle I want to watch from very far away. > > ezmlm and some other list packages that use qmail as their MTA send all posts > and digests out with a VERP that includes -recipient=domain.of.recipient and > confirmation requests for joining and quitting with reply addresses that > likewise include equal signs. > > It has just come to light today that webmail accounts on sites that run > BigMailBox will not accept equal signs in outgoing addresses, considering > them illegal. So users of such systems cannot confirm their attempts to > join such a list, or, if they got on some other way, they cannot confirm > their attempts to leave it. Also, I'd guess that list distributions to > closed, renamed, or over-quota accounts on such sites aren't bounced back, > because the mailer-daemon probably can't write to an address with an equal > sign either. > > BMB software is free to webmasters in return for carrying ads on their sites > for advertisers who buy space from BMB, and the sites themselves get a cut of > the advertising revenue. At least two of my webmail accounts run BMB. > > (BMB does allow hyphens, periods, plus signs, ampersands, apostrophes, pipes, > and underscores. What the sense is in allowing ampersands and pipes, I can't > guess; there is a risk that it may be given unquoted to a shell prompt or > shell script at the other end. Meanwhile, if ever I have to send a suffixed > Reply-To: address to what could be a BigMailBox site, I suppose a pipe or an > ampersand could substitute for the usual equal sign.) > > Somebody is wrong here. and I've a feeling it isn't the qmail people. It's not qmail that's broken. There are very few characters that are not allowed on the left side of an email address. LISTSERV uses asterisks for a similar purpose and we've run into problems with Banyan Mail gateways that don't seem to like that. From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 29 10:11:55 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA24545; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 10:04:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.143.206.18]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA24538 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 10:04:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from tpad.squawk.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA21315; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 13:09:04 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991129103626.03a135c0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 10:36:26 -0500 To: "Roger Fajman" From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: qmail/ezmlm vs. BigMailBox Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199911290541.VAA15575@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:45 AM 11/29/99 -0500, Roger Fajman wrote: >> Here's one battle I want to watch from very far away. [...] >> Somebody is wrong here. and I've a feeling it isn't the qmail people. > >It's not qmail that's broken. There are very few characters that are not >allowed on the left side of an email address. LISTSERV uses asterisks for >a similar purpose and we've run into problems with Banyan Mail gateways >that don't seem to like that. This is true. I now send a click-on-me URL in all of my confirmations, with a "get" mode URL with parameters on the command line that include the user's e-mail address and the token. This brings up a CGI which, if everything checks out, forges the confirmation mail from their address to my fixed majordomo address. Invoked without arguments it brings up a simple form that gives them space to cut and paste those items. (I use an MD5 hash instead of the Majordomo hash). All of the direct e-mail approaches work as well, including the mailto URL that might just format the mail for them. I gave up on trying to figure out how to make everyone's mailer work, how to get them to send plain text, how to turn off line wrap and so forth. And, frankly, this does not extend anyone's capabilities, it is just a convenience item. Since I did this simple piece of work, I have had many many fewer complaints about "Can't figure out how to subscribe, please help", and many fewer user interactions that make me spend time solving problems. I note that most folks still go the e-mail route for confirms, but, maybe 25% confirm via the web. In any case, you might consider using the web to finesse the broken e-mail system. Alternatively, consider providing an instructional page that explains how the end user caught in this pickle can telnet to port 25 of the system that MX's for the target and manually put in the e-mail to this weird address from themselves. :-) -- The largest civil rights organization in the USA? By far, it is the NRA. Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 29 16:11:52 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA28143; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 16:06:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from Kitten.mcs.com (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA28136 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 16:06:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from Mars.mcs.net (dattier@Mars.mcs.net [192.160.127.85]) by Kitten.mcs.com (8.8.7/8.8.2) with ESMTP id SAA23609 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 18:11:41 -0600 (CST) Received: (from dattier@localhost) by Mars.mcs.net (8.9.3/8.8.2) id SAA67614 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 18:11:41 -0600 (CST) From: "David W. Tamkin" Message-Id: <199911300011.SAA67614@Mars.mcs.net> Subject: Re: qmail/ezmlm vs. BigMailBox In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19991129103626.03a135c0@127.0.0.1> from Nick Simicich at "Nov 29, 1999 10:36:26 am" To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 18:11:40 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Nick Simicich wrote to the list, to Roger Fajman, and to me: | In any case, you might consider using the web to finesse the broken e-mail | system. Whom do you mean by "you," Nick? None of us here run the list hosts in question, so none of us here can change them. I do find it silly that ONElist, for example, gives a web URL in confirmation requests for subscriptions, preencoded with the confirmation cookie, as well as a reply address, but not in confirmation requests for removals. After all, if these people get their email on webmail services, they must have HTTP access. But the people who can do that are those who program the list host: not Roger, not me, not anyone here. | Alternatively, consider providing an instructional page that explains how | the end user caught in this pickle can telnet to port 25 of the system that | MX's for the target and manually put in the e-mail to this weird address | from themselves. :-) Interesting idea but impossible to explain to most people in that particular briny cucumber. Clicking on a URL sent to them in email is just about their speed. Asking them to send an answer to email anywhere besides the supplied reply address is way above their heads. BigMailBox's web site gave a phone number for sales; I called there and they transfered me to Jason in tech support, who transfered me to Chris in pro- gramming, to whom I explained that forbidding equal signs causes a problem; Chris said he'd refer it to his superiors. The people there were very nice and listened politely, but who knows whether they'll just forget that I called now that we've hung up? If they do make any changes, they'll show up on gohip.com right away, so I'll check what hap- pens on gohip.com from time to time. BTW, Chris did acknowledge that their mailer-daemon couldn't write to an address with an equal sign either, so if a BMB system closes or renames an account, or if a mail quota fills up, and the account is on a mailing list running under ezmlm or a derivative, the BMB system cannot return an NDN. From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 30 00:12:30 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA02420; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:47:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id XAA02412 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:47:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from yaz.hyperreal.org (pez.hyperreal.org [207.181.224.6]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id XAA16287 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 23:11:04 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 7164 invoked by uid 1000); 29 Nov 1999 07:16:23 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 29 Nov 1999 07:16:23 -0000 Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 23:16:23 -0800 (PST) From: Brian Behlendorf X-Sender: brian@yaz.hyperreal.org To: "David W. Tamkin" cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: qmail/ezmlm vs. BigMailBox In-Reply-To: <199911290358.VAA19579@Mercury.mcs.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, David W. Tamkin wrote: > It has just come to light today that webmail accounts on sites that run > BigMailBox will not accept equal signs in outgoing addresses, considering > them illegal. Terminate with extreme prejudice. =) There is no justifiable reason for this; it's got to boil down to a misunderstanding of relevant RFC's. Sounds like a simple adjustment to someone's regex. The good news is that users can't complain about not having alternatives - there's always hotmail. Brian From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 30 10:11:55 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA11189; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 10:07:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from ntcorp.dn.net (ntcorp.dn.net [207.226.172.79]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA11182 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 10:07:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (fidelman@localhost) by ntcorp.dn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA02068 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 13:11:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 13:11:38 -0500 (EST) From: Miles Fidelman X-Sender: fidelman@ntcorp.dn.net To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: mailman vs. majordomo2 vs. sympa In-Reply-To: <199911181315.IAA24792@grover.en.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi Folks, I'm thinking of upgrading my current list software - from majordomo to one of majordomo2, mailman, or sympa. Each of them seems to have some serious features above-and-beyond majordomo1, but I get the sense that each has its problems as well - I see lots of bugs go by on the mailman users list, and it seems like development is moving slowly on all three. Can anybody offer some opinions as to the reliability, maturity, and longer-term viability of each. Are there any other packages I should be looking at? Thanks! Miles Fidelman ************************************************************************** The Center for Civic Networking PO Box 600618 Miles R. Fidelman, President & Newtonville, MA 02460-0006 Director, Municipal Telecommunications Strategies Program 617-558-3698 fax: 617-630-8946 mfidelman@civicnet.org http://civic.net/ccn.html Information Infrastructure: Public Spaces for the 21st Century Let's Start With: Internet Wall-Plugs Everywhere Say It Often, Say It Loud: "I Want My Internet!" ************************************************************************** From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 30 12:11:56 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA12098; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 11:59:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from dragoncat.net (herne.dragoncat.net [216.122.4.136]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA12091 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 11:59:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (jtraub@localhost) by dragoncat.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA18209; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 12:04:42 -0800 Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 12:04:42 -0800 (PST) From: JT To: Miles Fidelman cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: mailman vs. majordomo2 vs. sympa In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Can anybody offer some opinions as to the reliability, maturity, and > longer-term viability of each. Are there any other packages I should be > looking at? I might be biased, but I'd recommend Listar (http://www.listar.org) --JT -- [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 30 13:11:54 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA12675; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 12:57:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from ikkoku.maison-otaku.net (ikkoku.maison-otaku.net [207.195.149.217]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA12668 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 12:57:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from godai.maison-otaku.net (godai.maison-otaku.net [216.122.4.241]) by ikkoku.maison-otaku.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF20AF898; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 13:12:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (loki@localhost) by godai.maison-otaku.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA05380; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 13:02:37 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: godai.maison-otaku.net: loki owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 13:02:36 -0800 (PST) From: Jeremy Blackman To: Miles Fidelman Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: mailman vs. majordomo2 vs. sympa In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Miles Fidelman wrote: > I'm thinking of upgrading my current list software - from majordomo to one > of majordomo2, mailman, or sympa. > > Each of them seems to have some serious features above-and-beyond > majordomo1, but I get the sense that each has its problems as well - I see > lots of bugs go by on the mailman users list, and it seems like > development is moving slowly on all three. Of the three, I get the impression that Mailman's major strength is the web interface, and Sympa's major strength is the localization. I've not tracked Sympa development, so I don't know how fast or slow it is; I do know that Mj2 development creeps along because the author is working mostly solo. > Can anybody offer some opinions as to the reliability, maturity, and > longer-term viability of each. Are there any other packages I should be > looking at? Of the three, Mailman probably has the biggest support community at the moment. Having not personally run lists under -any- of them (I've run under Majordomo 1, Smartlist, LISTSERV, and now I just run Listar for obvious reasons). I'll seem biased, but I will at least offer up Listar for comparison, too. :) The documentation is lacking (though being worked on), but development is fairly active and we try to handle user requests fairly quickly. You can find it at http://www.listar.org/ - I don't claim it's the perfect MLM, or even the best one for everyone, but it does what _I_ needed in an MLM (which is why I originally wrote it) and the developers are always open to suggestions for what else it should do. -- Jeremy Blackman - loki@maison-otaku.net / loki@listar.org / jeremy@lith.com Lithtech Team, Monolith Productions -- http://www.lith.com Listar Developer -- http://www.listar.org