From list-managers-owner Mon Oct 8 08:14:55 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA05690; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 07:59:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from claude.kendall.akamai.com (akafire.akamai.com [65.202.32.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC9A717ED3 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 07:59:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.kendall.akamai.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA01290 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 10:59:16 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 10:59:16 -0400 From: David Shaw To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: removeyou.com Message-ID: <20011008105916.C737@akamai.com> Mail-Followup-To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM References: <20010926122159.A32895@clifford.inch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from chuqui@plaidworks.com on Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 09:40:33PM -0700 X-PGP-Key: 2048R/3CB3B415/4D 96 83 18 2B AF BE 45 D0 07 C4 07 51 37 B3 18 X-URL: http://www.jabberwocky.com/ X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waning Gibbous (67% of Full) X-Pointless-Random-Number: 102 X-Silly-Header: It sure is. Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk r_moveyou.com now has competitors: autoemailr_moval.com, and worldr_move.com. I'm sure there will be more, and each of them is the one perfect *single* place to get off of spam lists! Sigh. They are extremely useful, though not in the way intended by their owners, since as you say, any email that mentions them can safely be chucked.. David On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 09:40:33PM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > As far as I can tell (and as far as I'm concerned), any mail I get that > referencee that site is spam, and is tossed into the spam folder. Which is > how I saw this -- I'm clearing that folder out, and setting that procmail > rule to /dev/null. Good timing! > > > On 9/26/01 9:21 AM, "Omar Thameen" wrote: > > > Has anyone had any dealings with http://www.r_moveyou.com/ ? > > Are they a legit and effective operation? > > > > Omar -- David Shaw | dshaw@jabberwocky.com | WWW http://www.jabberwocky.com/ +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson From list-managers-owner Mon Oct 8 09:44:43 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA06737; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 09:30:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.gamerz.net (www.gamerz.net [216.181.159.135]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9151C17ED3 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 09:30:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rrognlie@localhost) by www.gamerz.net (SendmailServer-1.0.1/8.11.1) id f98GUMi11172 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 12:30:22 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 12:30:22 -0400 From: Richard Rognlie To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Mail to yahoo getting blocked? Message-ID: <20011008123022.X22983@gamerz.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I run a game server, and a handful of mailing lists, and in the last couple days, all mail to yahoo.com has started backing up (mail to all other locations seems to be ok). In debugging this, I connect to the various yahoo.com MX servers on port 25, and it immediately closes the connection on me. It's as though I've been blacklisted or something. No clue why. If anyone has any contacts within the Yahoo NOC, I'd appreciate a pointer. I'm afraid any mail I send to postmaster@yahoo.com or yahoo-mail@yahoo-inc.com will be lost in the normal flood of mail that addr is bound to receive. -- / \__ | Richard Rognlie / Sendmail Ninja / Gamerz.NET Lackey \__/ \ | http://www.gamerz.net/rrognlie/ / \__/ | find / -name "*base*" -exec chown us:us {} \; \__/ | Anything worth doing is worth paying somebody else to do well From list-managers-owner Mon Oct 8 13:15:44 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA08578; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 13:02:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host4.ctc.net (host4.mail.vnet.net [166.82.1.69]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBFE417ED3 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 13:02:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from katie.vnet.net ([166.82.1.7]) by host4.ctc.net (InterMail vK.4.03.04.01 201-232-130-101 license 75504bbd3e802bc4034a0097f57d493d) with ESMTP id <20011008200224.BSKX357.host4@katie.vnet.net> for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 16:02:24 -0400 Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA04196 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 16:02:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 16:02:05 -0400 (EDT) From: murr rhame To: Subject: Re: removeyou.com In-Reply-To: <20011008105916.C737@akamai.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, David Shaw wrote: > They are extremely useful, though not in the way intended by > their owners, since as you say, any email that mentions them > can safely be chucked.. I have yet to hear of any removal site that passes the simple test of setting up a new email account and submitting it to an op-out list. That account will start receiving spam within hours. For most spammers, there is no incentive to honor an an op-out list. They could care less if they piss off a thousand people as long as one person in a thousand buys the product. - murr - From list-managers-owner Mon Oct 8 20:45:01 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA12886; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 20:32:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (unknown [198.144.204.210]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BD9417ED3 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 20:32:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (kanga.nu) [127.0.0.1] by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 15qndR-00066W-00; Mon, 08 Oct 2001 20:32:49 -0700 To: Richard Rognlie Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Mail to yahoo getting blocked? In-Reply-To: Message from Richard Rognlie of "Mon, 08 Oct 2001 12:30:22 EDT." <20011008123022.X22983@gamerz.net> References: <20011008123022.X22983@gamerz.net> X-message-flag: Are you sure that Microsoft Outlook is good enough for you to use? X-Accepted-File-Formats: text/plain preferred, Postscript and PDF accepted - *NO* Micosoft Office files please. X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 20:32:49 -0700 Message-ID: <23467.1002598369@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 8 Oct 2001 12:30:22 -0400 Richard Rognlie wrote: > In debugging this, I connect to the various yahoo.com MX servers > on port 25, and it immediately closes the connection on me. It's > as though I've been blacklisted or something. No clue why. Have you checked if your IP is one the RLB, DUL, ORBZ, or similar list? -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner Tue Oct 9 06:49:34 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA21726; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 06:34:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.gamerz.net (www.gamerz.net [216.181.159.135]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBF1417EBC for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 06:34:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rrognlie@localhost) by www.gamerz.net (SendmailServer-1.0.1/8.11.1) id f99DYcB03932; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 09:34:38 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 09:34:38 -0400 From: Richard Rognlie To: J C Lawrence Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Mail to yahoo getting blocked? Message-ID: <20011009093438.N27650@gamerz.net> References: <20011008123022.X22983@gamerz.net> <23467.1002598369@kanga.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <23467.1002598369@kanga.nu>; from claw@kanga.nu on Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 08:32:49PM -0700 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 08:32:49PM -0700, J C Lawrence wrote: > On Mon, 8 Oct 2001 12:30:22 -0400 > Richard Rognlie wrote: > > > In debugging this, I connect to the various yahoo.com MX servers > > on port 25, and it immediately closes the connection on me. It's > > as though I've been blacklisted or something. No clue why. > > Have you checked if your IP is one the RLB, DUL, ORBZ, or similar > list? Yep. First thing I checked. -- / \__ | Richard Rognlie / Sendmail Ninja / Gamerz.NET Lackey \__/ \ | http://www.gamerz.net/rrognlie/ / \__/ | find / -name "*base*" -exec chown us:us {} \; \__/ | Anything worth doing is worth paying somebody else to do well From list-managers-owner Tue Oct 9 08:32:26 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA22863; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 08:21:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.gamerz.net (www.gamerz.net [216.181.159.135]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3636B17EDC for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 08:20:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rrognlie@localhost) by www.gamerz.net (SendmailServer-1.0.1/8.11.1) id f99FKpK18056; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 11:20:51 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 11:20:51 -0400 From: Richard Rognlie To: J C Lawrence Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Mail to yahoo getting blocked? Message-ID: <20011009112051.B27650@gamerz.net> References: <20011008123022.X22983@gamerz.net> <23467.1002598369@kanga.nu> <20011009093438.N27650@gamerz.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <20011009093438.N27650@gamerz.net>; from rrognlie@gamerz.net on Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 09:34:38AM -0400 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 09:34:38AM -0400, Richard Rognlie wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 08:32:49PM -0700, J C Lawrence wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Oct 2001 12:30:22 -0400 > > Richard Rognlie wrote: > > > > > In debugging this, I connect to the various yahoo.com MX servers > > > on port 25, and it immediately closes the connection on me. It's > > > as though I've been blacklisted or something. No clue why. > > > > Have you checked if your IP is one the RLB, DUL, ORBZ, or similar > > list? > > Yep. First thing I checked. But apparently, I didn't check ALL of them. It seems my DSL provider's arin information was out of date, and on Sep 24th, they were added to ipwhois.rfc-ignorant.org. Which is apparently run by one of the yahoo admins/developers. I don't know for certain that this was the cause, but after contacting the above mentioned admin, I'm again able to talk to the yahoo mail servers. And on contacting my DSL provider, they thanked me for alerting them to the oversight, and assured me that they would fix it later today. Thanks for you help all! Richard -- / \__ | Richard Rognlie / Sendmail Ninja / Gamerz.NET Lackey \__/ \ | http://www.gamerz.net/rrognlie/ / \__/ | find / -name "*base*" -exec chown us:us {} \; \__/ | Anything worth doing is worth paying somebody else to do well From list-managers-owner Wed Oct 10 00:45:01 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id AAA05228; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 00:33:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (unknown [198.144.204.210]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23FCF17EB9 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 00:33:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (kanga.nu) [127.0.0.1] by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 15rDst-0001xe-00; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 00:34:31 -0700 To: Richard Rognlie Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Mail to yahoo getting blocked? In-Reply-To: Message from Richard Rognlie of "Tue, 09 Oct 2001 11:20:51 EDT." <20011009112051.B27650@gamerz.net> References: <20011008123022.X22983@gamerz.net> <23467.1002598369@kanga.nu> <20011009093438.N27650@gamerz.net> <20011009112051.B27650@gamerz.net> X-message-flag: Are you sure that Microsoft Outlook is good enough for you to use? X-Accepted-File-Formats: text/plain preferred, Postscript and PDF accepted - *NO* Micosoft Office files please. X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 00:34:31 -0700 Message-ID: <7541.1002699271@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 9 Oct 2001 11:20:51 -0400 Richard Rognlie wrote: > On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 09:34:38AM -0400, Richard Rognlie wrote: >> Have you checked if your IP is one the RLB, DUL, ORBZ, or similar >> list? >> Yep. First thing I checked. > But apparently, I didn't check ALL of them. Unfortunately there are no canonical lists. > It seems my DSL provider's arin information was out of date, and > on Sep 24th, they were added to ipwhois.rfc-ignorant.org. Which > is apparently run by one of the yahoo admins/developers. Yup, that would likely be Derek Balling. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner Wed Oct 10 10:17:37 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA13427; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 10:12:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (glock.squawk.com [208.176.124.157]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1351917EB5 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 10:12:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from toshiba.scifi.squawk.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52F3635029; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:12:04 -0400 (EDT) X-America-has-resolve: yes Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011010123117.03ad0a80@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:11:55 -0400 To: J C Lawrence , Richard Rognlie From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: Mail to yahoo getting blocked? Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <7541.1002699271@kanga.nu> References: <20011009112051.B27650@gamerz.net> <20011008123022.X22983@gamerz.net> <23467.1002598369@kanga.nu> <20011009093438.N27650@gamerz.net> <20011009112051.B27650@gamerz.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:34 AM 2001-10-10 -0700, J C Lawrence wrote: >On Tue, 9 Oct 2001 11:20:51 -0400 >Richard Rognlie wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 09:34:38AM -0400, Richard Rognlie wrote: > > >> Have you checked if your IP is one the RLB, DUL, ORBZ, or similar > >> list? > > >> Yep. First thing I checked. > > > But apparently, I didn't check ALL of them. > >Unfortunately there are no canonical lists. Nope. The closest thing I've found is http://relays.osirusoft.com/cgi-bin/rbcheck.cgi But it does not include ipwhois.rfc-ignorant.org. I've sent an e-mail to the developer asking that that source be added to the checker. -- War is an ugly thing, but it is not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made so by the exertions of better men than himself. -- John Stuart Mill Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com From list-managers-owner Thu Oct 11 07:17:57 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA28907; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 07:00:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clifford.inch.com (ns.biglist.com [216.223.208.40]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EA29017EB3 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 07:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 21953 invoked by uid 501); 11 Oct 2001 13:58:32 -0000 Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:58:32 -0400 From: Omar Thameen To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Cc: murr rhame Subject: Re: removeyou.com Message-ID: <20011011095832.A21885@clifford.inch.com> References: <20011008105916.C737@akamai.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from murr@vnet.net on Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 04:02:05PM -0400 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Is this something that we list owners/providers can set up in an open fashion and run legitimately, perhaps not-for-profit? Obviously, there would be a number of issues to tackle like who would maintain it and how to ensure that unscrupulous people don't get a hold of the address list (or pollute it with valid addresses). Omar On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 04:02:05PM -0400, murr rhame wrote: > On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, David Shaw wrote: > > > They are extremely useful, though not in the way intended by > > their owners, since as you say, any email that mentions them > > can safely be chucked.. > > I have yet to hear of any removal site that passes the simple > test of setting up a new email account and submitting it to an > op-out list. That account will start receiving spam within > hours. For most spammers, there is no incentive to honor an an > op-out list. They could care less if they piss off a thousand > people as long as one person in a thousand buys the product. > > > - murr - > From list-managers-owner Thu Oct 11 10:01:38 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA00712; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:47:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from agamemnon.cnchost.com (unknown [207.155.252.31]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5BD517EB3 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:47:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jcdill-latitude.vo.cnchost.com (nat-external.ultradns.net [216.15.7.195]) by agamemnon.cnchost.com id MAA29087; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 12:47:46 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.14] Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011011094235.02276990@pop.vo.cnchost.com> X-Sender: inet-list@vo.cnchost.com@pop.vo.cnchost.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:44:52 -0700 To: Omar Thameen , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: JC Dill Subject: Re: removeyou.com Cc: murr rhame In-Reply-To: <20011011095832.A21885@clifford.inch.com> References: <20011008105916.C737@akamai.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 09:58 AM 10/11/2001 -0400, Omar Thameen wrote: >Is this something that we list owners/providers can set up in an >open fashion and run legitimately, perhaps not-for-profit? Why? People have overwhelming indicated that they do not want to receive unsolicited bulk email. Legitimate marketers do not send to people who have not opted-in. Spammers are never going to honor any global opt-out list. So who do you think will use this list? jc From list-managers-owner Thu Oct 11 10:16:31 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA00706; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:47:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from claude.kendall.akamai.com (akafire.akamai.com [65.202.32.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B1AB17EB2 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:47:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.kendall.akamai.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01966 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 12:47:35 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 12:47:35 -0400 From: David Shaw To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: removeyou.com Message-ID: <20011011124735.A834@akamai.com> Mail-Followup-To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM References: <20011008105916.C737@akamai.com> <20011011095832.A21885@clifford.inch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20011011095832.A21885@clifford.inch.com>; from omar@clifford.inch.com on Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 09:58:32AM -0400 X-PGP-Key: 2048R/3CB3B415/4D 96 83 18 2B AF BE 45 D0 07 C4 07 51 37 B3 18 X-URL: http://www.jabberwocky.com/ X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waning Crescent (33% of Full) X-Pointless-Random-Number: 141 X-Silly-Header: It sure is. Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 09:58:32AM -0400, Omar Thameen wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 04:02:05PM -0400, murr rhame wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, David Shaw wrote: > > > > > They are extremely useful, though not in the way intended by > > > their owners, since as you say, any email that mentions them > > > can safely be chucked.. > > > > I have yet to hear of any removal site that passes the simple > > test of setting up a new email account and submitting it to an > > op-out list. That account will start receiving spam within > > hours. For most spammers, there is no incentive to honor an an > > op-out list. They could care less if they piss off a thousand > > people as long as one person in a thousand buys the product. > Is this something that we list owners/providers can set up in an > open fashion and run legitimately, perhaps not-for-profit? > > Obviously, there would be a number of issues to tackle like who > would maintain it and how to ensure that unscrupulous people don't > get a hold of the address list (or pollute it with valid addresses). I doubt it. Like Mr. Rhame said above - there is just no incentive (actually negative incentive) for most spammers to "clean" their address list via such a global opt-out list. Why should they? Cleaning their lists means they hit fewer people. David -- David Shaw | dshaw@jabberwocky.com | WWW http://www.jabberwocky.com/ +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson From list-managers-owner Thu Oct 11 14:01:38 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA03288; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 13:46:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail01g.rapidsite.net (mail01g.rapidsite.net [207.158.192.232]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BB42517EB2 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 13:46:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.jadebox.com (207.158.243.143) by mail01g.rapidsite.net (RS ver 1.0.60s) with SMTP id 017608987; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:46:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <003401c15296$87cb3c60$3d716489@orlando.veridian.com> From: "Roger Smith" To: Cc: "murr rhame" References: <20011008105916.C737@akamai.com> <20011011095832.A21885@clifford.inch.com> Subject: Re: removeyou.com Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:51:41 -0400 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 X-Loop-Detect: 1 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Is this something that we list owners/providers can set up in an > open fashion and run legitimately, perhaps not-for-profit? Unfortunately, it might also provide a way for spammers to validate addresses. -- Roger Harryfest 2002 - A Celebration of the Music of Harry Nilsson June 14-16, 2001 - Orlando, Florida http://www.harryfest.com/ From list-managers-owner Fri Oct 12 05:34:10 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA15386; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 05:29:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stmpy-4.cais.net (stmpy-4.cais.net [205.252.14.74]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A86E17EBA for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 05:29:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from newnt.cais.com ([198.69.129.60]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f9CCTA446915 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 08:29:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20011012084102.021c3ec0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: firschng@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 08:42:38 -0400 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Dorothy Firsching Subject: Re:removeyou.com In-Reply-To: <200110120800.BAA10221@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I tried it. The accounts I gave them received spam the next day. So much for the idea; I think this particular site is a sham. Dorothy From list-managers-owner Fri Oct 12 12:05:38 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA19257; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:46:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dogberry.rutgers.edu (dogberry.rutgers.edu [165.230.209.227]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 900CB17EBF for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:46:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from puck2.rutgers.edu (sendmail@puck2.rutgers.edu [165.230.209.234]) by dogberry.rutgers.edu (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9CIkGD03266; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:46:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from easmith@localhost) by puck2.rutgers.edu (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f9CIkFd66866; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:46:15 -0400 (EDT) From: "Allen Smith" Message-Id: <10110121446.ZM71693@puck2.rutgers.edu> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:46:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: Dorothy Firsching "Re:removeyou.com" (Oct 12, 9:38am) References: <5.0.2.1.0.20011012084102.021c3ec0@pop.cais.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.3 08feb96 MediaMail) To: Dorothy Firsching , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Re:removeyou.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Oct 12, 9:38am, Dorothy Firsching wrote: > I tried it. The accounts I gave them received spam the next day. > > So much for the idea; I think this particular site is a sham. That's the experience on spamcop-list and other anti-spam lists. Indeed, I know of _no_ such general-removal site that isn't either a scam or essentially useless (and that's including the DMA one). -Allen -- Allen Smith easmith@beatrice.rutgers.edu September 11, 2001 A Day That Shall Live In Infamy II "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin From list-managers-owner Sat Oct 13 04:51:27 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id EAA01695; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 04:25:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns.howlermonkey.net (24129128hfc172.tampabay.rr.com [24.129.128.172]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB9817ECA for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 04:25:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.howlermonkey.net (24129128hfc172.tampabay.rr.com [24.129.128.172]) by ns.howlermonkey.net (8.11.1/8.11.0) with SMTP id f9DBP2Y67794 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 07:25:02 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from highprimate@howlermonkey.net) Message-Id: <200110131125.f9DBP2Y67794@ns.howlermonkey.net> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 07:25:01 2001 -0400 From: "Kirk D Bailey" To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Re: removeyou.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk If it is offered as a list of people who REFUSE o purchaqse in response to spam, yea they would, such persons are a total waste of time. Why bother emailing them at all? end In total confusion, Kirk D Bailey +----------------------------------------------------+ | Providing Excellent email service for free!! | | Webmaster, Howlermonkey Email services Co. | | highprimate@howlermonkey.net www.howlermonkey.net/ | +----------------------------------------------------+ ODD#1.8.01/kdb/sigme >-------- ORIGINAL MESSAGE BELOW -------- >On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 09:58:32AM -0400, Omar Thameen wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 04:02:05PM -0400, murr rhame wrote: >> > On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, David Shaw wrote: >> > >> > > They are extremely useful, though not in the way intended by >> > > their owners, since as you say, any email that mentions them >> > > can safely be chucked.. >> > >> > I have yet to hear of any removal site that passes the simple >> > test of setting up a new email account and submitting it to an >> > op-out list. That account will start receiving spam within >> > hours. For most spammers, there is no incentive to honor an an >> > op-out list. They could care less if they piss off a thousand >> > people as long as one person in a thousand buys the product. > >> Is this something that we list owners/providers can set up in an >> open fashion and run legitimately, perhaps not-for-profit? >> >> Obviously, there would be a number of issues to tackle like who >> would maintain it and how to ensure that unscrupulous people don't >> get a hold of the address list (or pollute it with valid addresses). > >I doubt it. Like Mr. Rhame said above - there is just no incentive >(actually negative incentive) for most spammers to "clean" their >address list via such a global opt-out list. Why should they? >Cleaning their lists means they hit fewer people. > >David > >-- > David Shaw | dshaw@jabberwocky.com | WWW http://www.jabberwocky.com/ >+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. > We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson > > Bikeshop.com
banner From list-managers-owner Sat Oct 13 07:05:39 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA02779; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 06:59:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from claude.kendall.akamai.com (walrus.ne.mediaone.net [65.96.217.88]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD08317E8E for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 06:59:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.kendall.akamai.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21760 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 09:59:24 -0400 Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 09:59:24 -0400 From: David Shaw To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Re: removeyou.com Message-ID: <20011013095924.C664@akamai.com> Mail-Followup-To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM References: <200110131125.f9DBP2Y67794@ns.howlermonkey.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200110131125.f9DBP2Y67794@ns.howlermonkey.net>; from highprimate@howlermonkey.net on Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 12:32:01PM +0000 X-PGP-Key: 2048R/3CB3B415/4D 96 83 18 2B AF BE 45 D0 07 C4 07 51 37 B3 18 X-URL: http://www.jabberwocky.com/ X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waning Crescent (20% of Full) X-Pointless-Random-Number: 73 X-Silly-Header: It sure is. Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 12:32:01PM +0000, Kirk D Bailey wrote: > If it is offered as a list of people who REFUSE o purchaqse in > response to spam, yea they would, such persons are a total waste of > time. Why bother emailing them at all? Because it takes some amount of effort for the spammers to clean up their list. Why should they bother? If they are spammers who sell CDs of people's addresses or offer to spam for others, each address they remove means one less address they can sell. There is a direct disincentive to clean their list. The fact that the address is spam-hostile, or even may exist at all is completely insignificant. If they are spammers who spam directly, they usually do it via abusing an open relay, and with a forged From_ address. Why should they even spend a second to clean their list? They'll never see any bounces from the bogus addresses, and they already know they are going to lose their disposable account for spamming. It's easier to spam 10,000 addresses and not care that 1,000 are going to complain and another 1,000 are bad addresses than it is to clean the list and spam the 7,998 who just-hit-delete. Granted, there are other spammers, with other methods of spamming than these two examples, but these are two of the larger groups. The address "perspers@jabberwocky.com" was invented as a spam trap and used to post to Usenet around 4 years ago. After a few months, it was delted. So it has not existed for years, and it STILL gets spammed every single day. If spammers aren't even going to stop spamming addresses that return a No-Such-User, there is no hope for a remove list. David -- David Shaw | dshaw@jabberwocky.com | WWW http://www.jabberwocky.com/ +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson From list-managers-owner Sat Oct 13 07:20:40 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA02902; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 07:09:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pop2b.ripco.com (pop2b.ripco.com [209.100.227.27]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 783F517E8E for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 07:09:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidscarf (cpe-66-1-8-251.il.sprintbbd.net [66.1.8.251]) by pop2b.ripco.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id f9DE9Vt03461 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 09:09:31 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <005d01c153f0$9df944e0$fb080142@plaidscarf> From: "David W. Tamkin" To: References: <200110131125.f9DBP2Y67794@ns.howlermonkey.net> Subject: Re: removeyou.com Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 09:08:12 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Kirk Bailey asked, | If it is offered as a list of people who REFUSE o purchaqse in | response to spam, yea they would, such persons are a total waste of | time. Why bother emailing them at all? Kirk, you are way too logical ever to go into advertising. Obviously they think that by bombarding a person who is against spamming with even more spam -- which you and I are intelligent enough to see would just increase the recipient's opposition -- they'll accomplish some admixture of punishing the person for being against spam, converting him/her to enjoying spam, or shining out so brightly amid the other spam that the person will make an exception for their product or service and purchase it despite his/her principles. [Remember, these are people who can't grasp the concept of having principles.] From list-managers-owner Sat Oct 13 07:35:37 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA03001; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 07:23:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tom.iecc.com (tom.iecc.com [208.31.42.38]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0BD8617E8B for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 07:23:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 23005 invoked from network); 13 Oct 2001 10:23:43 -0400 Received: (ofmipd 208.31.42.38); 13 Oct 2001 14:23:21 -0000 Date: 13 Oct 2001 10:23:43 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Kirk D Bailey" Cc: "list-managers@GreatCircle.COM" Subject: Re: Re: removeyou.com In-Reply-To: <200110131125.f9DBP2Y67794@ns.howlermonkey.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > If it is offered as a list of people who REFUSE o purchaqse in > response to spam, yea they would, such persons are a total waste of > time. Why bother emailing them at all? Because most spammers aren't really trying to sell what the spam purports to sell, they're selling alleged advertising services to suckers. The goal is to say "we sent 10 million copies of your ad", and they don't want to know where all the spam went. I get large amounts of spam to addresses that were never valid, and were either message-IDs scraped from old usenet messages, or mangled addresses scraped by web pages by broken scrapeware. They really don't care who they're mailing to. 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 Sat Oct 13 09:50:52 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA04077; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 09:36:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (unknown [198.144.204.210]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09C0017E8B for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 09:36:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (kanga.nu) [127.0.0.1] by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 15sRmB-0005uX-00; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 09:36:39 -0700 To: "Kirk D Bailey" Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: removeyou.com In-Reply-To: Message from "Kirk D Bailey" of "Sat, 13 Oct 07:25:01 2001 -0400 ." <200110131125.f9DBP2Y67794@ns.howlermonkey.net> References: <200110131125.f9DBP2Y67794@ns.howlermonkey.net> X-message-flag: Are you sure that Microsoft Outlook is good enough for you to use? X-Accepted-File-Formats: text/plain preferred, Postscript and PDF accepted - *NO* Micosoft Office files please. X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 09:36:39 -0700 Message-ID: <22724.1002990999@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, 13 Oct 07:25:01 2001 -0400 Kirk D Bailey wrote: > If it is offered as a list of people who REFUSE o purchaqse in > response to spam, yea they would, such persons are a total waste > of time. Why bother emailing them at all? Because there is zero cost to them in emailing such people, and there is benefit to the mailers in being able to sell a bigger/longer email address list to the company that they sell the address list to, or send SPAM for. Such at list would be an attractive target -- its a high grade list of new addresses that won't bounce... -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner Sat Oct 20 12:18:14 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA05363; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 12:06:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from segfault.monkeys.com (246.dsl6660157.rstatic.surewest.net [66.60.157.246]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 185FE17EB6 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 12:06:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.monkeys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85F7E66D5 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 12:06:30 -0700 (PDT) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Automated bounce recognition Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 12:06:30 -0700 Message-ID: <85789.1003604790@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk For purposes unrelated to mailing list administration, I have developed a C language program whose purpose is to automatically differentiate automated response e-mail messages (e.g. bounce messages) from other types of e-mail messages. This program had been quite well tested and debugged now, and I've been using it for production purposes for some time. It's accuracy in making the differentiation between automated and non-automated replies is very very high, certainly in excess of 99%. I am mentioning this program here for two reasons. The first reason is that I want to further `tune' the differentiator using more input test data. It has already been tuned using a very large sample of both automated replies and non-automated replies, but the program can always benefit by yet more tuning/testing on yet more sample inputs. Thus, I'm asking anyone and everyone here who might be in possession of any large archives of e-mail and who might be willing and able to supply me with copies of those archives (in compressed form via FTP) to contact me and let me know where/how I can obtain copies of those archives. The second reason that I mention this differentiator here is that it occurs to me that it might possibly have some application to mailing list administration, either on its own, or perhaps when coupled with some other software. I'd like to solicit opinions from List-Managers about this possibility. Would anyone here have a use for such a pro- gram? If so, then I'd like to know what the interest level is, and whether it would be worth my time to ``productize'' and document the code with an eye towards making some sort of a public release, either as freeware or perhaps commercially. P.S. If there is any interest in this sort of a program for use in conjunction with mailing list administration, then a number of other questions arise. First on the list is the question of the handling of non-bounce automatically-generated replies, e.g. from autoresponders. In the context of mailing list administration, would it be best to consider autoresponder messages as being functionally equivalent to non-deliverable bounce messages, or as functionally equivalent to ordinary non-bounce messages, or as neither of the above (i.e. a third and separate category, all by themselves). From list-managers-owner Sat Oct 20 14:03:15 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA06470; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 13:47:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server1.safepages.com (server1.safepages.com [216.127.146.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D88D17ED8 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 13:47:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [63.15.103.221] (1Cust221.tnt6.myrtle-beach.sc.da.uu.net [63.15.103.221]) by server1.safepages.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4289A5D1E; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 20:47:11 +0000 (GMT) X-Sender: lof@lofcom.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <85789.1003604790@monkeys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 16:46:44 -0400 To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Charlie Summers Subject: Re:Automated bounce recognition Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 3:06 PM -0400 10/20/2001, Ronald F. Guilmette is rumored to have typed: > First on the list is the question of the handling > of non-bounce automatically-generated replies, e.g. from autoresponders. > In the context of mailing list administration, would it be best to > consider autoresponder messages as being functionally equivalent to > non-deliverable bounce messages, or as functionally equivalent to > ordinary non-bounce messages, or as neither of the above (i.e. a > third and separate category, all by themselves). Any of my subscribers who are daft enough to send an autoresponder (vacation or otherwise) to a mailing of bulk or list precedence are immediately unsubscribed with a canned note explaining the reason with suggestions on how to fix the damaged autoresponder and a welcome to resubscribe AFTER the autoresponder is fixed (yeah, I wrote a script to do it, I'm not that in love with manual labor); so I don't even give them the 2/4/6/8/whatever-strikes-your-done that 500-level errors receive. Of course, most folks here aren't so draconian, but I'm more interested in s/n ratios than raw subscriber numbers, so I can afford to dump idiots with brain-dead autoresponders. Charlie From list-managers-owner Sat Oct 20 17:18:14 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA08568; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:06:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (unknown [198.144.204.210]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6366717ED8 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:06:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (kanga.nu) [127.0.0.1] by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 15v68O-0002ta-00; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:06:32 -0700 To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition In-Reply-To: Message from "Ronald F. Guilmette" of "Sat, 20 Oct 2001 12:06:30 PDT." <85789.1003604790@monkeys.com> References: <85789.1003604790@monkeys.com> X-message-flag: Are you sure that Microsoft Outlook is good enough for you to use? X-Accepted-File-Formats: text/plain preferred, Postscript and PDF accepted - *NO* Micosoft Office files please. X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:06:32 -0700 Message-ID: <11133.1003622792@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 12:06:30 -0700 Ronald F Guilmette wrote: > For purposes unrelated to mailing list administration, I have > developed a C language program whose purpose is to automatically > differentiate automated response e-mail messages (e.g. bounce > messages) from other types of e-mail messages. Bounces have the unique quality of have a null return envelope. Filter on that and you'll have no problem. ( -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner Sat Oct 20 18:03:14 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA08998; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:57:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tom.iecc.com (tom.iecc.com [208.31.42.38]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9AFD717ED8 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:57:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 22393 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2001 20:57:25 -0400 Received: (ofmipd 208.31.42.38); 21 Oct 2001 00:57:03 -0000 Date: 20 Oct 2001 20:57:25 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "list-managers@GreatCircle.COM" Subject: HTML mail and AOL 7.0 In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.0.20010209225107.00af7a80@pop.climber.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I don't recall if this has been discussed here yet, but I am relieved to report that AOL 7.0 fixes the "HTML everywhere" mail bug in AOL 6. If you send a plain text message in AOL 7.0, it's sent as plain text. I've tested it myself. This means, of course, that if you're getting multipart/crud from your AOL users, you can now tell them "upgrade to 7.0" and they might even do it. 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 Sat Oct 20 18:18:14 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA08992; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:56:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gopostal.onlinepolicy.net (gopostal.onlinepolicy.net [209.157.101.241]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9769017ED8 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:56:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from attitude.queernet.org ([216.15.55.98]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by gopostal.onlinepolicy.net (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id f9L0KXr27064; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:20:33 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011020174807.08c58140@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net> X-Sender: rogerk@queernet.org@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:49:19 -0700 To: J C Lawrence From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <11133.1003622792@kanga.nu> References: <85789.1003604790@monkeys.com> <85789.1003604790@monkeys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 05:06 PM 10/20/2001 -0700, you wrote: >Bounces have the unique quality of have a null return envelope. >Filter on that and you'll have no problem. ( With the number of sites violating RFCs and rejecting null-envelope bounce messages, my list owners are not getting their lists' bounces. I am seriously considering putting in a return address on them from here on. From list-managers-owner Sat Oct 20 18:33:16 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA08972; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:55:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tom.iecc.com (tom.iecc.com [208.31.42.38]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9193617ED8 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:55:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 22344 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2001 20:55:05 -0400 Received: (ofmipd 208.31.42.38); 21 Oct 2001 00:54:43 -0000 Date: 20 Oct 2001 20:55:05 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "J C Lawrence" Cc: "list-managers@greatcircle.com" Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition In-Reply-To: <11133.1003622792@kanga.nu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > For purposes unrelated to mailing list administration, I have > > developed a C language program whose purpose is to automatically > > differentiate automated response e-mail messages (e.g. bounce > > messages) from other types of e-mail messages. > > Bounces have the unique quality of have a null return envelope. > Filter on that and you'll have no problem. ( In theory, you are entirely correct. In practice, the variety of broken bounces staggers the imagination, and you need to catch all sorts of garbage and do complex pattern matches to try and figure out what happened. Also, it's legitimate for vacation messages to have null envelopes since there's not much point in sending bounces back to the vacation program. 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 Sat Oct 20 18:48:15 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA09495; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 18:42:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from segfault.monkeys.com (246.dsl6660157.rstatic.surewest.net [66.60.157.246]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4302617ED8 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 18:42:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.monkeys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF2A06399 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 18:42:51 -0700 (PDT) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:06:32 -0700. <11133.1003622792@kanga.nu> Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 18:42:51 -0700 Message-ID: <88514.1003628571@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <11133.1003622792@kanga.nu>, J C Lawrence wrote: >On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 12:06:30 -0700 >Ronald F Guilmette wrote: > >> For purposes unrelated to mailing list administration, I have >> developed a C language program whose purpose is to automatically >> differentiate automated response e-mail messages (e.g. bounce >> messages) from other types of e-mail messages. > >Bounces have the unique quality of have a null return envelope. In an ideal world, yes. In this one however, the truth doesn't even begin to approach that ideal. >Filter on that and you'll have no problem. ( Believe me, I've tried. If you try to differentiate mail message into two piles, just based on whtehre the envelope sender was null or not, then in one pile... the null envelope sender pile... you will have a lot of bounce messages, but also a fair amount of spam, and also quite a few auto-responses from badly implemented autoresponders. In the other pile... the non-null envelope sender pile... you will have a lot of normal messages PLUS a lot of non-deliverable bounces PLUS a lot of autoresponses. Life, in practice, just isn't as simple as we would wish it to be. From list-managers-owner Sat Oct 20 19:03:14 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA09636; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 18:58:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from segfault.monkeys.com (246.dsl6660157.rstatic.surewest.net [66.60.157.246]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4F1C17ED8 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 18:58:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.monkeys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76828639A for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 18:58:17 -0700 (PDT) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:49:19 -0700. <5.1.0.14.0.20011020174807.08c58140@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net> Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 18:58:17 -0700 Message-ID: <88670.1003629497@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <5.1.0.14.0.20011020174807.08c58140@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net>, "Roger B.A. Klorese" wrote: >At 05:06 PM 10/20/2001 -0700, you wrote: >>Bounces have the unique quality of have a null return envelope. >>Filter on that and you'll have no problem. ( > >With the number of sites violating RFCs and rejecting null-envelope bounce >messages, my list owners are not getting their lists' bounces. I am >seriously considering putting in a return address on them from here on. The above comment is very ambiguous, but at least one interpretation of it is somewhat worrisome (to me at least). I don't want to misinterpret, so I need to ask you if you would mind clarifying what you meant to say. Are you running mailing lists (from your site) on bahalf of other parties and are you then auto-forwarding any bounce messages that come back, to your site (for any of the mailings sent for those mailing lists) to the respective ``list owners'' at other sites? P.S. Yes, a few Really Dumb sites (e.g. myrealbox.com) have elected to reject _all_ incoming mail that carries a null envelope sender address. They do this as a hopelessly misguided attempt at spam control, when what they should clearly be doing instead is using some program like the one I mentioned here (at the start of this thread) which could rid them of the spam flotsam while still allowing legitimate non-deliverable bounce messages (and legitimate autoresponder response messages) through. From list-managers-owner Sat Oct 20 19:18:24 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA09780; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:04:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from segfault.monkeys.com (246.dsl6660157.rstatic.surewest.net [66.60.157.246]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D796E17ED8 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:04:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.monkeys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 481EB639A for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:04:38 -0700 (PDT) To: "list-managers@greatcircle.com" Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition In-reply-to: Your message of 20 Oct 2001 20:55:05 -0400. Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:04:38 -0700 Message-ID: <88743.1003629878@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , "John R Levine" wrote: >> > For purposes unrelated to mailing list administration, I have >> > developed a C language program whose purpose is to automatically >> > differentiate automated response e-mail messages (e.g. bounce >> > messages) from other types of e-mail messages. >> >> Bounces have the unique quality of have a null return envelope. >> Filter on that and you'll have no problem. ( > >In theory, you are entirely correct. In practice, the variety of broken >bounces staggers the imagination, and you need to catch all sorts of >garbage and do complex pattern matches to try and figure out what >happened. I would agree with what John has said, except that I would remove the word `complex'. Nothing I'm doing in my automatic response recognizer/differentiator is particularly complex. I'm not even using regular expressions. Just plain old verbatim text matching against the Subject: line and the first several lines of body text. The only complex part is the painstaking work of analyzing hundreds of thousands of bounce and non-bounces mail messages and coming up with the list of `stigmata' strings (that are distinctively found only in bounce and autoresponse messages) to search for. From list-managers-owner Sat Oct 20 19:33:16 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA09940; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:18:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (unknown [198.144.204.210]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA57D17EC3 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:18:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (kanga.nu) [127.0.0.1] by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 15v8Bv-00039k-00; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:18:19 -0700 To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition In-Reply-To: Message from "Roger B.A. Klorese" of "Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:49:19 PDT." <5.1.0.14.0.20011020174807.08c58140@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net> References: <85789.1003604790@monkeys.com> <85789.1003604790@monkeys.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20011020174807.08c58140@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net> X-message-flag: Are you sure that Microsoft Outlook is good enough for you to use? X-Accepted-File-Formats: text/plain preferred, Postscript and PDF accepted - *NO* Micosoft Office files please. X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:18:19 -0700 Message-ID: <12135.1003630699@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:49:19 -0700 Roger B A Klorese wrote: > At 05:06 PM 10/20/2001 -0700, you wrote: >> Bounces have the unique quality of have a null return envelope. >> Filter on that and you'll have no problem. ( > With the number of sites violating RFCs and rejecting > null-envelope bounce messages, my list owners are not getting > their lists' bounces. I am seriously considering putting in a > return address on them from here on. There's a simple handling for such: null route their mail. If/when they fix their configs, remove the filter. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner Sat Oct 20 19:48:17 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA10194; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:44:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gopostal.onlinepolicy.net (gopostal.onlinepolicy.net [209.157.101.241]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F5BC17EC3 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:44:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from attitude.queernet.org ([216.15.55.98]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by gopostal.onlinepolicy.net (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id f9L28hr27651; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:08:43 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011020193608.08a98160@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net> X-Sender: rogerk@queernet.org@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:37:32 -0700 To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <88670.1003629497@monkeys.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 06:58 PM 10/20/2001 -0700, you wrote: >Are you running mailing lists (from your site) on bahalf of other parties >and are you then auto-forwarding any bounce messages that come back, to >your site (for any of the mailings sent for those mailing lists) to the >respective ``list owners'' at other sites? In *some* cases, yes. >P.S. Yes, a few Really Dumb sites (e.g. myrealbox.com) have elected >to reject _all_ incoming mail that carries a null envelope sender address. >They do this as a hopelessly misguided attempt at spam control, when what >they should clearly be doing instead is using some program like the one >I mentioned here (at the start of this thread) which could rid them of >the spam flotsam while still allowing legitimate non-deliverable bounce >messages (and legitimate autoresponder response messages) through. I have no control over what filtering methods my list-owners' home sites use. I have some control over whether I send them messages that will reach them. From list-managers-owner Sat Oct 20 20:03:27 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA10151; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:37:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gopostal.onlinepolicy.net (gopostal.onlinepolicy.net [209.157.101.241]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 237E217EC3 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:37:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from attitude.queernet.org ([216.15.55.98]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by gopostal.onlinepolicy.net (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id f9L220r27614; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:02:00 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011020192754.08c19618@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net> X-Sender: rogerk@queernet.org@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:30:48 -0700 To: J C Lawrence From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <12135.1003630699@kanga.nu> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011020174807.08c58140@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net> <85789.1003604790@monkeys.com> <85789.1003604790@monkeys.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20011020174807.08c58140@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 07:18 PM 10/20/2001 -0700, J C Lawrence wrote: >On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:49:19 -0700 >Roger B A Klorese wrote: > > With the number of sites violating RFCs and rejecting > > null-envelope bounce messages, my list owners are not getting > > their lists' bounces. I am seriously considering putting in a > > return address on them from here on. > >There's a simple handling for such: null route their mail. If/when >they fix their configs, remove the filter. I'm not surprised you say that, but unlike your site whose mission is to provide lists for an elite who are both in a position to affect their mail servers and consider that part of their job, what we're about is providing communities for as many of the end-users in our sphere of interest as we can. Making their ISPs work properly is between us and their ISP; as far as they're concerned, they can just move their community to Yahoo and forget about our techy fascism if we pull something like that. From list-managers-owner Sat Oct 20 20:18:38 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA10564; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 20:04:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gopostal.onlinepolicy.net (gopostal.onlinepolicy.net [209.157.101.241]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4266617EC3 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 20:04:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from attitude.queernet.org ([216.15.55.98]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by gopostal.onlinepolicy.net (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id f9L2Rfr27775; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:27:41 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011020195555.02607b00@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net> X-Sender: rogerk@queernet.org@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:56:31 -0700 To: Christopher K Davis From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: References: <"Roger B.A. Klorese"'s message of "Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:49:19 -0700"> <85789.1003604790@monkeys.com> <85789.1003604790@monkeys.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20011020174807.08c58140@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:45 PM 10/20/2001 -0400, Christopher K Davis wrote: >Your list owners are on your site, right? As long as your site isn't >rejecting null senders, they'll get their bo No, they're not. They get their list-owner mail on their home ISPs. From list-managers-owner Sat Oct 20 20:33:16 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA10594; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 20:06:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server10.safepages.com (server10.safepages.com [216.127.146.24]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87EBF17EDF for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 20:05:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [63.15.103.215] (1Cust215.tnt6.myrtle-beach.sc.da.uu.net [63.15.103.215]) by server10.safepages.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AAFE3C23E; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 03:05:40 +0000 (GMT) X-Sender: lof@lofcom.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <88337.1003627334@monkeys.com> References: Your message of Sat, 20 Oct 2001 16:46:44 -0400. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 22:51:10 -0400 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Charlie Summers Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 9:22 PM -0400 10/20/2001, Ronald F. Guilmette is rumored to have typed: > So I gather then that for you at least, it might be considered useful for > a mail differentiation tool to be able to differentiate auto-responses > from non-deliverable bounces, yes? Not at all, thanks, I never said that. I wouldn't be interested in such a thing at all, since I have a 100% accuracy rate differenciating manually, something impossible for any computer program (not to doubt your numbers, but I find it tough to believe you could catch the goofy vacation autoresponders I've seen without a human intelligence behind the decision-making). Charlie (who is on vacation, and because he is using a dialup through UUNET, cannot email you directly becuse of your server blocks) From list-managers-owner Sat Oct 20 20:48:16 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA10632; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 20:09:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (unknown [198.144.204.210]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 870BD17EC3 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 20:09:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (kanga.nu) [127.0.0.1] by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 15v90D-0003G8-00; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 20:10:17 -0700 To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition In-Reply-To: Message from "Ronald F. Guilmette" of "Sat, 20 Oct 2001 18:42:51 PDT." <88514.1003628571@monkeys.com> References: <88514.1003628571@monkeys.com> X-message-flag: Are you sure that Microsoft Outlook is good enough for you to use? X-Accepted-File-Formats: text/plain preferred, Postscript and PDF accepted - *NO* Micosoft Office files please. X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 20:10:17 -0700 Message-ID: <12531.1003633817@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 18:42:51 -0700 Ronald F Guilmette wrote: > In message <11133.1003622792@kanga.nu>, J C Lawrence > wrote: > If you try to differentiate mail message into two piles, just > based on whtehre the envelope sender was null or not, then in one > pile... the null envelope sender pile... you will have a lot of > bounce messages, but also a fair amount of spam, and also quite a > few auto-responses from badly implemented autoresponders. In the > other pile... the non-null envelope sender pile... you will have a > lot of normal messages PLUS a lot of non-deliverable bounces PLUS > a lot of autoresponses. Odd that. I do filter in precisely that way and while yes, I do catch a fair bit of spam, my non-spam false positive rate is pretty close to zero (somewhere near 0.0001%). > Life, in practice, just isn't as simple as we would wish it to be. Too true. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner Sat Oct 20 21:03:20 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA10711; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 20:15:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from claude.kendall.akamai.com (unknown [65.96.217.88]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F159717EC3 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 20:15:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.kendall.akamai.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA24760 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 23:14:08 -0400 Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 23:14:08 -0400 From: David Shaw To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition Message-ID: <20011020231408.A21517@akamai.com> Mail-Followup-To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM References: <85789.1003604790@monkeys.com> <85789.1003604790@monkeys.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20011020174807.08c58140@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net> <12135.1003630699@kanga.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <12135.1003630699@kanga.nu>; from claw@kanga.nu on Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 07:18:19PM -0700 X-PGP-Key: 2048R/3CB3B415/4D 96 83 18 2B AF BE 45 D0 07 C4 07 51 37 B3 18 X-URL: http://www.jabberwocky.com/ X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Crescent (20% of Full) X-Pointless-Random-Number: 161 X-Silly-Header: It sure is. Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 07:18:19PM -0700, J C Lawrence wrote: > On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:49:19 -0700 > Roger B A Klorese wrote: > > At 05:06 PM 10/20/2001 -0700, you wrote: > > >> Bounces have the unique quality of have a null return envelope. > >> Filter on that and you'll have no problem. ( > > > With the number of sites violating RFCs and rejecting > > null-envelope bounce messages, my list owners are not getting > > their lists' bounces. I am seriously considering putting in a > > return address on them from here on. > > There's a simple handling for such: null route their mail. If/when > they fix their configs, remove the filter. There is a RBL-like blacklist service for sites that reject null envelopes: http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/policy-dsn.html David -- David Shaw | dshaw@jabberwocky.com | WWW http://www.jabberwocky.com/ +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson From list-managers-owner Sat Oct 20 21:18:16 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA10582; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 20:05:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server10.safepages.com (server10.safepages.com [216.127.146.24]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32EDE17EC3 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 20:05:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [63.15.103.215] (1Cust215.tnt6.myrtle-beach.sc.da.uu.net [63.15.103.215]) by server10.safepages.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF8EF3C1D7; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 03:05:43 +0000 (GMT) X-Sender: lof@lofcom.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <5.0.0.25.0.20010209225107.00af7a80@pop.climber.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 22:59:28 -0400 To: "John R Levine" , "list-managers@GreatCircle.COM" From: Charlie Summers Subject: Re:HTML mail and AOL 7.0 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 8:57 PM -0400 10/20/2001, John R Levine is rumored to have typed: > I don't recall if this has been discussed here yet, but I am relieved to > report that AOL 7.0 fixes the "HTML everywhere" mail bug in AOL 6. If you > send a plain text message in AOL 7.0, it's sent as plain text. I've > tested it myself. Yes, no, and maybe. If the user has current settings that change _any_ text attribute, particularly in the signature of their message (but I've also seen it in a guy that has his default font set to bold in the body), the mail will come HTML anyway, and trying to explain to them the problem ("but I SENT plain text!") is difficult at best. The settings carry over through the upgrade to 7.0. It is only a guess, but I'm betting that if the user replies to a message that is marked-up in any way by the AOL software (I've seen this in people replying to a text/plain digest and the result being HTML), the result will also be HTML. I don't doubt that an intelligent user could get the software to send plain text, but trust me, having spent the last two days dealing with some folks on one of my lists testing 7.0, the novice user is competely at a loss even though AOL "support" gives them minimal steps to follow. Is it really this tough for the "programmers" at AOL to add a "plain text" setting that strips _all_ the type formatting regardless of its source? I still recommend that people save money and grief, and get a real Internet provider. Charlie From list-managers-owner Sat Oct 20 22:03:19 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA12169; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 22:01:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gopostal.onlinepolicy.net (gopostal.onlinepolicy.net [209.157.101.241]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA86A17EC3 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 22:01:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from attitude.queernet.org ([216.15.55.98]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by gopostal.onlinepolicy.net (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id f9L4P4r28426 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 21:25:04 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011020215255.093878b0@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net> X-Sender: rogerk@queernet.org@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 21:53:58 -0700 To: "list-managers@GreatCircle.COM" From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Subject: Re:HTML mail and AOL 7.0 In-Reply-To: References: <5.0.0.25.0.20010209225107.00af7a80@pop.climber.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:59 PM 10/20/2001 -0400, Charlie Summers wrote: > Is it really this tough for the "programmers" at AOL to add a "plain >text" setting that strips _all_ the type formatting regardless of its >source? No, but they don't really care what *we* think... we're not allowing AOL users to get the service The World's Simplest Email System gives them. From list-managers-owner Sat Oct 20 22:17:04 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA12152; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 22:00:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gopostal.onlinepolicy.net (gopostal.onlinepolicy.net [209.157.101.241]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79C0B17EE3 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 22:00:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from attitude.queernet.org ([216.15.55.98]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by gopostal.onlinepolicy.net (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id f9L4Nbr28422; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 21:23:37 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011020215126.0269fff8@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net> X-Sender: rogerk@queernet.org@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 21:52:31 -0700 To: David Shaw From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <20011020231408.A21517@akamai.com> References: <12135.1003630699@kanga.nu> <85789.1003604790@monkeys.com> <85789.1003604790@monkeys.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20011020174807.08c58140@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net> <12135.1003630699@kanga.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:14 PM 10/20/2001 -0400, you wrote: >There is a RBL-like blacklist service for sites that reject null >envelopes: > > http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/policy-dsn.html Again, that's nice IF what you value is the purity of the Internet. If what you value is the ability to provide the service they need to a community, better ways to block mail just doesn't cut it. From list-managers-owner Sat Oct 20 23:02:01 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA12661; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 22:48:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from segfault.monkeys.com (246.dsl6660157.rstatic.surewest.net [66.60.157.246]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3D4B17EC3 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 22:48:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.monkeys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12DDD66D6; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 22:48:08 -0700 (PDT) To: Charlie Summers Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 20 Oct 2001 22:51:10 -0400. Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 22:48:08 -0700 Message-ID: <90761.1003643288@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , you wrote: > Charlie (who is on vacation, and because he is using a dialup > through UUNET, cannot email you directly becuse of > your server blocks) If you had mailed me via any one of UUnet's numerous well-secured mail servers, then no problem. Looking at today's mail servers logs however, I see that you tried to send mail here from some mail server belonging to the mystery domain `safepages.com'. I don't accept mail from that domain anymore, and haven't for quite some time. As far as I know, it's just a front operation for spammers. The home page (www.safepages.com) provides nothing to make me believe otherwise, and much to make me believe that it IS in fact just a front for spammers. (And I've received MANY spams from that mystery domain.) When and if whoever owns that domain decides to come of of the closet and identify themselves, then I might recosider, but for the moment, I interpret `safepages' to mean `A safe place to put your web site if you are a spammer, and if you don't want to have your account terminated.' P.S. It ain't just safepages.com's home page that's particularly unin- formative. Their WHOIS record leaves their true location and phone number an utter mystery also: Registered to: SafePages (SAFEPAGES-HOLDER) P.O. Box 77526 Seattle, WA 98177-0526 US Domain Name: SAFEPAGES.COM Registered through: 1stDomain.net Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact, Billing Contact: Brandon Mullenberg (BRMU100F) admin@safepages.com NA NA, NA NA US + Domain created: 1998-11-18. Domain last updated: 2000-11-17. Domain expires: 2005-11-17. Name servers for this domain: NS3.SAFEPAGES.COM 216.127.139.9 (HO128F) NS4.SAFEPAGES.COM 216.127.139.10 (HO129F) From list-managers-owner Sun Oct 21 00:47:22 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id AAA13739; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 00:35:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.13.23]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E3FAB17EB7 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 00:35:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 18953 invoked by uid 50); 21 Oct 2001 07:34:59 -0000 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition References: <88514.1003628571@monkeys.com> In-Reply-To: "Ronald F. Guilmette"'s message of "Sat, 20 Oct 2001 18:42:51 -0700" From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: 21 Oct 2001 00:34:59 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 14 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Channel Islands) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Ronald F Guilmette writes: > If you try to differentiate mail message into two piles, just based on > whtehre the envelope sender was null or not, then in one pile... the > null envelope sender pile... you will have a lot of bounce messages, but > also a fair amount of spam, and also quite a few auto-responses from > badly implemented autoresponders. And all replies from one particularly piece of list management software whose authors have their own very... idiosyncratic interpretations of the mail RFCs. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From list-managers-owner Sun Oct 21 01:49:42 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id BAA15476; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 01:43:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DE3417EB7 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 01:43:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smsltd.demon.co.uk ([158.152.67.200] helo=bandsman) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15vECI-0004TI-0A for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 08:43:06 +0000 Reply-To: From: "Nigel Horne" To: Subject: Yahoo Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 09:43:44 +0100 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 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 In-Reply-To: <200110210800.BAA14054@honor.greatcircle.com> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Anyone have any news about the problems with Yahoo? -Nigel -- Nigel Horne. Arranger, Composer, Conductor, Typesetter. Owner of the brass band group of the Internet. ICQ#20252325 http://www.bandsman.co.uk/music.htm From list-managers-owner Sun Oct 21 03:04:38 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id CAA16212; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 02:53:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.gamerz.net (www.gamerz.net [216.181.159.135]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5518017EB7 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 02:53:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rrognlie@localhost) by www.gamerz.net (SendmailServer-1.0.1/8.11.1) id f9L9r6w20379; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 05:53:06 -0400 Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 05:53:06 -0400 From: Richard Rognlie To: Nigel Horne Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Yahoo Message-ID: <20011021055306.P32101@gamerz.net> References: <200110210800.BAA14054@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: ; from njh@smsltd.demon.co.uk on Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 09:43:44AM +0100 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I know *my* problem with yahoo got resolved. My DSL provider was listed on ipwhois.rfc-ignorant.org... I alerted them, and it's been fixed On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 09:43:44AM +0100, Nigel Horne wrote: > Anyone have any news about the problems with Yahoo? > > -Nigel > > -- > Nigel Horne. Arranger, Composer, Conductor, Typesetter. > Owner of the brass band group of the Internet. > ICQ#20252325 http://www.bandsman.co.uk/music.htm > -- / \__ | Richard Rognlie / Sendmail Ninja / Gamerz.NET Lackey \__/ \ | http://www.gamerz.net/rrognlie/ / \__/ | find / -name "*base*" -exec chown us:us {} \; \__/ | Anything worth doing is worth paying somebody else to do well From list-managers-owner Sun Oct 21 06:50:57 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA19827; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 06:46:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from trex.uia.net (mail.uia.net [66.146.0.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F6B317EC9 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 06:46:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lehel.goldmark.private (46.16191.uia.net [131.161.91.46]) by trex.uia.net (8.11.1/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9L3BLX75582 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 20:11:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jeffrey (helo=localhost) by lehel.goldmark.private with local-esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 15v919-0007tN-00 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 20:11:15 -0700 Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 20:11:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeffrey Goldberg X-X-Sender: Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg To: List Managers Mailing list Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011020174807.08c58140@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: > With the number of sites violating RFCs and rejecting null-envelope bounce > messages, my list owners are not getting their lists' bounces. Take a look at rfc-ignorant.org and considering using some of their RBL style lists, and certainly nominating those domains which don't accept null-envelope bounces. -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice Freedom is not free! From list-managers-owner Sun Oct 21 07:35:54 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA20214; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:22:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server3.safepages.com (server3.safepages.com [216.127.146.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58B5317EB7 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:22:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [63.26.210.218] (1Cust218.tnt3.myrtle-beach.sc.da.uu.net [63.26.210.218]) by server3.safepages.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B5545D41; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:21:55 +0000 (GMT) X-Sender: lof@lofcom.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <90761.1003643288@monkeys.com> References: Your message of Sat, 20 Oct 2001 22:51:10 -0400. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 10:21:01 -0400 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Charlie Summers Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 1:48 AM -0400 10/21/2001, Ronald F. Guilmette is rumored to have typed: > If you had mailed me via any one of UUnet's numerous well-secured mail > servers, then no problem. > > Looking at today's mail servers logs however, I see that you tried to > send mail here from some mail server belonging to the mystery domain > `safepages.com'. I was specifically instructed by the provider (reseller) of this $11.95/month cheapie dialup account (might explain mole spam, come to think of it) to use that server for outbound mail, and so I am. Since I'll only need this dialup another week or so, and you are the _only_ admin rejecting this server that I've run across (and, frankly, if you don't get my mail there's not much loss for either of us), I'm not real concerned about it. You did, however, misunderstand my comment. You are certainly welcomed to block any server you want, for any reason you want (I reject connections from some servers just because I got weary of the garbage coming from some users). My comment was directed more to the other subscribers, to let them know why I was using the list to send comments more appropriate to private email than the list. Like this one. Charlie (who thinks port 25 blocking ONLY hurts legitimate users; my spam load hasn't dropped a whit since the big boys implimented it, but I can't use my own secured server to send mail while on the road) From list-managers-owner Mon Oct 22 11:21:11 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA10613; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:14:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ultradns.com (mail.ultradns.net [204.74.100.34]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1290217ED2 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:14:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 24562 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2001 18:14:48 -0000 Received: from nat-external.ultradns.net (HELO jcdill-latitude.vo.cnchost.com) (204.74.100.10) by mail.ultradns.net with SMTP; 22 Oct 2001 18:14:48 -0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011021085802.024105c0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: inet-list@vo.cnchost.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:12:02 -0700 To: Charlie Summers , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: JC Dill Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition In-Reply-To: References: <90761.1003643288@monkeys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 10:21 AM 10/21/2001 -0400, Charlie Summers wrote: >I can't use my own secured server to send mail while on the road I find it depressing that someone who manages mailing lists and has their "own secured server" resorts to this lame excuse. If it's your own secured server you have many different ways to authenticate yourself and send thru it, including (but not limited to): SMTP Auth (only works if your network connection doesn't hijack port 25 as is unfortunately becoming increasingly common on lame consumer networks) Pop before send (same port 25 access issues as above) UsePopSend/pop rcpt (my ISP supports that and so that's how I pop and send all my personal email, no need for any SMTP server to connect my client to) This works anytime you can POP your email on port 110, no need to use port 25 from your client computer AT ALL. SSH to the server and setup a port 25 tunnel from your computer to the server, then send your email thru the SSH tunnel. Port tunneling via SSH is supported by a large number of SSH clients. Your mail gets sent encrypted (that's how I POP ALL my email from servers that don't support POPS, that way I can safely POP email from an insecure network such as the wireless LAN at conventions, as I'm doing today at nanog) and over the SSH tunnel, so the mail server sees the port 25 connection as originating from itself. Assuming you already have SSH access to your own secured server, you shouldn't need to configure anything different on your server or your client for this to work, you just need to start the SSH tunnel before you send email. IMHO that's a whole lot easier than changing your SMTP server settings on your client depending on where you are connecting from at the moment. This works anytime you can SSH on port 22, which is almost all the time. jc From list-managers-owner Mon Oct 22 11:51:09 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA10914; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:34:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from msic.dia.mil (msic-450.msic.dia.mil [136.205.227.211]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E553717EBC for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:34:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [136.205.227.85] (account allan HELO msic.dia.mil) by msic.dia.mil (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 1326703 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:34:04 -0500 Message-ID: <3BD4668F.D806647D@msic.dia.mil> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:33:51 -0500 From: Allan Newsome Reply-To: allan@msic.dia.mil X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Yahoo References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I'm seeing the following all over the place from Yahoo.com users.... (reason: 552 exceeded rcpt to max limit) (expanded from: :include:/usr/local/majordomo/Lists/wbmutbb-digest) I've tried making the Digest versions smaller in size but that doesn't seem to have corrected the problem. Anybody have any ideas? Allan Newsome Nigel Horne wrote: > Anyone have any news about the problems with Yahoo? > > -Nigel > > -- > Nigel Horne. Arranger, Composer, Conductor, Typesetter. > Owner of the brass band group of the Internet. > ICQ#20252325 http://www.bandsman.co.uk/music.htm From list-managers-owner Mon Oct 22 13:21:10 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA11969; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:12:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mercury.ccmr.cornell.edu (mercury.ccmr.cornell.edu [128.84.231.97]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68B6817EB3 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:12:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ruby.ccmr.cornell.edu (IDENT:0@ruby.ccmr.cornell.edu [128.84.231.115]) by mercury.ccmr.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA18186; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:13:03 -0400 Received: from localhost (mitch@localhost) by ruby.ccmr.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA21462; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:12:19 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: ruby.ccmr.cornell.edu: mitch owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:12:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Mitch Collinsworth To: Allan Newsome Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Yahoo In-Reply-To: <3BD4668F.D806647D@msic.dia.mil> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > (reason: 552 exceeded rcpt to max limit) > (expanded from: :include:/usr/local/majordomo/Lists/wbmutbb-digest) > > I've tried making the Digest versions smaller in size but that doesn't seem to have corrected the problem. Anybody have any ideas? A "rcpt to max limit" would be the number of recipients you're sending to at that site. Sendmail sends one copy of the message to each destination MTA with all recipients listed in the envelope headers (rcpt to:). The receiving sendmail will then deliver a separate copy to each recipient. Sounds like yahoo don't understand the difference between mail lists and spammers. You have a few options: - you could try fiddling with your sendmail to put fewer recipients per message. I think there's a cf parameter for this but it's been too long since I looked. I could be wrong. - you could try hollering at yahoo that they are stupid. - you could tell your yahoo zubscribers to find a real ISP. -Mitch From list-managers-owner Mon Oct 22 13:36:10 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA11979; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:13:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.apple.com (lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FDE117EB3 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:13:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [17.216.27.143] (A17-216-27-143.apple.com [17.216.27.143]) by lists.apple.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f9MJUXW18657; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:30:33 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:30:49 -0700 Subject: Re: Yahoo From: Chuq Von Rospach To: , Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <3BD4668F.D806647D@msic.dia.mil> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 10/22/01 11:33 AM, "Allan Newsome" wrote: > (reason: 552 exceeded rcpt to max limit) > (expanded from: :include:/usr/local/majordomo/Lists/wbmutbb-digest) > > I've tried making the Digest versions smaller in size but that doesn't seem to > have corrected the problem. Anybody have any ideas? It's not a message size limit, but a number-of-users-in-one-batch limit. You're trying to send to too many users at one time, and tripping one of their anti-spam filters. The RFC says you have to accept 100 addresses in a batch. Many sites are now taking that to mean if you try to send them 101 or 102, they'll reject you. Answer: don't put more than 100 users to any one domain in any single delivery batch. Problem: you're using sendmail, and majordomo. It doesn't break up batches for you by default. You need to move to a more modern MLM, or use something like bulk_mailer, that can break stuff up for you. IMNSO opinion, I wouldn't run majordomo today. It simply isn't terribly compatible with how e-mail has evolved. I don't know if majordomo II was ever released, but majordomo is really long in the tooth, and this is just one of the places where it runs into today's e-mail reality and takes it in the teeth. From list-managers-owner Mon Oct 22 13:51:20 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA12207; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:36:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gopostal.onlinepolicy.net (gopostal.onlinepolicy.net [209.157.101.241]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 585EB17ED1 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:36:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rklorese.queernet.org ([63.93.12.71]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by gopostal.onlinepolicy.net (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id f9MJwpr16930; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:58:53 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011022133436.02cbc9b8@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net> X-Sender: rogerk@queernet.org@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:35:44 -0700 To: allan@msic.dia.mil From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Subject: Re: Yahoo Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <3BD4668F.D806647D@msic.dia.mil> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 01:33 PM 10/22/2001 -0500, Allan Newsome wrote: >I'm seeing the following all over the place from Yahoo.com users.... > >(reason: 552 exceeded rcpt to max limit) > (expanded from: :include:/usr/local/majordomo/Lists/wbmutbb-digest) > >I've tried making the Digest versions smaller in size but that doesn't >seem to have corrected the problem. Anybody have any ideas? It's the number of recipients you're dropping to them in one envelope that's the problem. It would be more readable if they'd capitalized it differently: >(reason: 552 exceeded RCPT TO max limit) From list-managers-owner Mon Oct 22 14:06:11 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA12335; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:50:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ma-1.rootsweb.com (ma-1.rootsweb.com [209.192.148.153]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53A1617ED1 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:50:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from twp@localhost) by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.10.0.Beta10/8.10.0.Beta10) id f9MKoB994380; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:50:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:50:11 -0400 From: Tim Pierce To: Allan Newsome Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Yahoo Message-ID: <20011022165011.Z386@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <3BD4668F.D806647D@msic.dia.mil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3BD4668F.D806647D@msic.dia.mil>; from allan@msic.dia.mil on Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 01:33:51PM -0500 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 01:33:51PM -0500, Allan Newsome wrote: > I'm seeing the following all over the place from Yahoo.com users.... > > (reason: 552 exceeded rcpt to max limit) > (expanded from: :include:/usr/local/majordomo/Lists/wbmutbb-digest) > > I've tried making the Digest versions smaller in size but that doesn't seem to have corrected the problem. Anybody have any ideas? That probably means that your MLM software or your MTA are delivering to more users in a batch than Yahoo is willing to accept. The solution is probably to reconfigure your mailing list daemon or your mail server, whichever is responsible for grouping recipients into delivery batches. Or switch to qmail, which is a popular answer. :-) From list-managers-owner Mon Oct 22 14:21:13 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA12439; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:56:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from trex.uia.net (mail.uia.net [66.146.0.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A6BE17ED1 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:56:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lehel.goldmark.private (22.16191.uia.net [131.161.91.22]) by trex.uia.net (8.11.1/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9MKuiX27850 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:56:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jeffrey (helo=localhost) by lehel.goldmark.private with local-esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 15vm7h-0001lF-00 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:56:37 -0700 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:56:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeffrey Goldberg X-X-Sender: Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg To: List Managers Mailing list Subject: Re: Yahoo In-Reply-To: <3BD4668F.D806647D@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 Oct 2001, Allan Newsome wrote: > I'm seeing the following all over the place from Yahoo.com users.... > > (reason: 552 exceeded rcpt to max limit) > (expanded from: :include:/usr/local/majordomo/Lists/wbmutbb-digest) According to RFC (2)821 an SMTP server should accept mail with upto 100 recipients. But spam fighting efforts lead some hosts to set a lower limit. I don't know what Yahoo's is. > I've tried making the Digest versions smaller in size but that doesn't > seem to have corrected the problem. Anybody have any ideas? That won't do it. What you need to do is make sure that mail to yahoo is delivered in batches smaller than N, where N is their cut-off. I don't know how to get sendmail to do that, but with exim, I would set up a specific router for mail going to yahoo, and in that router set max_rcpt = 15 (where 15 is a wild guess at what might go through). But assuming you are using sendmail, you will need someone else to help. -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice Freedom is not free! From list-managers-owner Mon Oct 22 14:52:25 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA12979; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:44:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from segfault.monkeys.com (246.dsl6660157.rstatic.surewest.net [66.60.157.246]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C216017ED1 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:44:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.monkeys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65442639A for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:43:58 -0700 (PDT) To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Yahoo In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:12:19 -0400. Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:43:58 -0700 Message-ID: <9106.1003787038@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , Mitch Collinsworth wrote: >> (reason: 552 exceeded rcpt to max limit) >> (expanded from: :include:/usr/local/majordomo/Lists/wbmutbb-digest) >> >> I've tried making the Digest versions smaller in size but that doesn't seem >to have corrected the problem. Anybody have any ideas? > >A "rcpt to max limit" would be the number of recipients you're >sending to at that site. Sendmail sends one copy of the message to >each destination MTA with all recipients listed in the envelope >headers (rcpt to:). The receiving sendmail will then deliver a >separate copy to each recipient. Sounds like yahoo don't understand >the difference between mail lists and spammers. More to the point, it is not entirely clear that the folks at Yahoo have either read or fully understood the following passage from RFC 2821: If an SMTP server has an implementation limit on the number of RCPT commands and this limit is exhausted, it MUST use a response code of 452 (but the client SHOULD also be prepared for a 552, as noted above). If the server has a configured site-policy limitation on the number of RCPT commands, it MAY instead use a 5XX response code. This would be most appropriate if the policy limitation was intended to apply if the total recipient count for a particular message body were enforced even if that message body was sent in multiple mail transactions. (My own opinion is that most probably, they simply screwed up, and they ought to be issuing 452 codes for excess RCPT TOs in a given transaction.) From list-managers-owner Mon Oct 22 15:37:27 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA13530; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:18:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tom.iecc.com (tom.iecc.com [208.31.42.38]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 92CA217ED7 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:18:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 27986 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2001 18:18:08 -0400 Received: (ofmipd 208.31.42.38); 22 Oct 2001 22:17:46 -0000 Date: 22 Oct 2001 18:18:08 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Chuq Von Rospach" Cc: "List-Managers@greatcircle.com" Subject: Re: majordomo 2 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > IMNSO opinion, I wouldn't run majordomo today. It simply isn't terribly > compatible with how e-mail has evolved. I don't know if majordomo II was > ever released, but majordomo is really long in the tooth, and this is just > one of the places where it runs into today's e-mail reality and takes it in > the teeth. Majordomo 2 is in chronic late beta. It works very well, but the message screens and the like need to be cleaned up and translated for civilians to use. It's all new code, only the commands resemble majordomo1, and it is much smarter about handling its mail. If anyone wants more info, write and I'll provide details. 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 Oct 22 16:35:30 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA14254; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:20:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from trex.uia.net (mail.uia.net [66.146.0.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDF6617ED4 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:20:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lehel.goldmark.private (25.16191.uia.net [131.161.91.25]) by trex.uia.net (8.11.1/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9MNKee58276 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:20:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jeffrey (helo=localhost) by lehel.goldmark.private with local-esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 15voN0-0001o2-00 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:20:34 -0700 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:20:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeffrey Goldberg X-X-Sender: Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg To: List Managers Mailing list Subject: Re: Yahoo 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 Oct 2001, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > Problem: you're using sendmail, and majordomo. It doesn't break up batches > for you by default. You need to move to a more modern MLM, or use something > like bulk_mailer, that can break stuff up for you. Note that switching from sendmail to almost any of the alternatives obviates the need for bulk_mailer. I know that exim will do the two things that bulk_mailer is good for (parallelizing delivery and sorting with some preferred domains). I assume that postfix and others have similar features. -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice Freedom is not free! From list-managers-owner Mon Oct 22 17:35:04 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA15091; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:22:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gopostal.onlinepolicy.net (gopostal.onlinepolicy.net [209.157.101.241]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA4B917ED4 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:22:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rklorese.queernet.org ([63.93.12.71]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by gopostal.onlinepolicy.net (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id f9MNinr18281; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:44:49 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011022172053.062674b8@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net> X-Sender: rogerk@queernet.org@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:21:15 -0700 To: Jeffrey Goldberg From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Subject: Re: Yahoo Cc: List Managers Mailing list In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 04:20 PM 10/22/2001 -0700, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: >Note that switching from sendmail to almost any of the alternatives >obviates the need for bulk_mailer. As does upgrading to sendmail 8.12. From list-managers-owner Mon Oct 22 18:05:11 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA15472; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:58:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dozer.liquidweb.com (unknown [64.91.229.57]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C820C17ED4 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:58:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scadian by dozer.liquidweb.com with local (Exim 3.33 #1) id 15vptz-0006Ts-00; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:58:43 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:58:43 -0400 From: blaise@scadian.net To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Yahoo Message-ID: <20011022205843.B17095@scadian.net> Mail-Followup-To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM References: <9106.1003787038@monkeys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <9106.1003787038@monkeys.com>; from rfg@monkeys.com on Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 02:43:58PM -0700 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - dozer.liquidweb.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - greatcircle.com X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [32028 529] / [32028 529] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - dozer.liquidweb.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 02:43:58PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > > In message , > Mitch Collinsworth wrote: > > >> (reason: 552 exceeded rcpt to max limit) > >> (expanded from: :include:/usr/local/majordomo/Lists/wbmutbb-digest) > >> > >> I've tried making the Digest versions smaller in size but that doesn't seem > >to have corrected the problem. Anybody have any ideas? > > > >A "rcpt to max limit" would be the number of recipients you're > >sending to at that site. Sendmail sends one copy of the message to > >each destination MTA with all recipients listed in the envelope > >headers (rcpt to:). The receiving sendmail will then deliver a > >separate copy to each recipient. Sounds like yahoo don't understand > >the difference between mail lists and spammers. > > More to the point, it is not entirely clear that the folks at Yahoo > have either read or fully understood the following passage from RFC 2821: > > If an SMTP server has an implementation limit on the number of RCPT > commands and this limit is exhausted, it MUST use a response code of > 452 (but the client SHOULD also be prepared for a 552, as noted > above). If the server has a configured site-policy limitation on the > number of RCPT commands, it MAY instead use a 5XX response code. > This would be most appropriate if the policy limitation was intended > to apply if the total recipient count for a particular message body > were enforced even if that message body was sent in multiple mail > transactions. > > (My own opinion is that most probably, they simply screwed up, and they > ought to be issuing 452 codes for excess RCPT TOs in a given transaction.) My opinion is that they read the RFC precisely and you missed a spot. This does not seem to be an implementation limit but a configured site- policy limitation (as far as we can tell). Jim -- Jim Trigg /"\ SKA Blaise de Cormeilles \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN Hostmaster X HELP CURE HTML MAIL Academy of S. Gabriel / \ From list-managers-owner Mon Oct 22 19:34:57 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA16343; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:17:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD24417EE0 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:17:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [64.81.78.182] (dsl081-078-182.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.182]) by plaidworks.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f9N2GYQ13187; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:16:34 -0700 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:16:35 -0700 Subject: Re: Yahoo From: Chuq Von Rospach To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" , Jeffrey Goldberg Cc: List Managers Mailing list Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011022172053.062674b8@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 10/22/01 5:21 PM, "Roger B.A. Klorese" wrote: > As does upgrading to sendmail 8.12. Right now, I wouldn't touch 8.12 with a ten foot pole. Ask me about 8.12.4. Maybe. From list-managers-owner Mon Oct 22 19:50:04 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA16348; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:18:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C7A717EE0 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:18:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [64.81.78.182] (dsl081-078-182.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.182]) by plaidworks.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f9N2IKQ13212; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:18:20 -0700 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:18:21 -0700 Subject: Re: Yahoo From: Chuq Von Rospach To: , "Ronald F. Guilmette" Cc: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20011022205843.B17095@scadian.net> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 10/22/01 5:58 PM, "blaise@scadian.net" wrote: > My opinion is that they read the RFC precisely and you missed a spot. > This does not seem to be an implementation limit but a configured site- > policy limitation (as far as we can tell). Wasn't it on this list where we were having the discussion about not accepting mail from <>, even though the spec says to? Are we really saying it's okay for us to violate the RFC for anti-spam purposes, but not Yahoo? Not that yahoo is, unlike the people rejecting <>. But that seems to be what I'm hearing here. From list-managers-owner Mon Oct 22 20:05:04 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA16602; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:45:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gopostal.onlinepolicy.net (gopostal.onlinepolicy.net [209.157.101.241]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84B7217EE0 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:45:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from attitude.queernet.org ([216.15.55.98]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by gopostal.onlinepolicy.net (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id f9N27Pr19159; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:07:25 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011022193738.0a376900@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net> X-Sender: rogerk@queernet.org@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:38:09 -0700 To: Chuq Von Rospach , Jeffrey Goldberg From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Subject: Re: Yahoo Cc: List Managers Mailing list In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011022172053.062674b8@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 07:16 PM 10/22/2001 -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >On 10/22/01 5:21 PM, "Roger B.A. Klorese" wrote: > > > As does upgrading to sendmail 8.12. > >Right now, I wouldn't touch 8.12 with a ten foot pole. Ask me about 8.12.4. >Maybe. I couldn't disagree more -- in fact, I doubt there'll be a 8.12.4. I've been running 8.12 since early beta. From list-managers-owner Mon Oct 22 20:34:58 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA17080; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:31:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gopostal.onlinepolicy.net (gopostal.onlinepolicy.net [209.157.101.241]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D612B17EBA for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:31:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from attitude.queernet.org ([216.15.55.98]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by gopostal.onlinepolicy.net (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id f9N2mor19451; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:48:50 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011022201719.0a278660@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net> X-Sender: rogerk@queernet.org@gopostal.onlinepolicy.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:19:35 -0700 To: Chuq Von Rospach , , "Ronald F. Guilmette" From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Subject: Re: Yahoo Cc: In-Reply-To: References: <20011022205843.B17095@scadian.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 07:18 PM 10/22/2001 -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >Are we really saying it's okay for us to violate the RFC for anti-spam >purposes, but not Yahoo? > >Not that yahoo is, unlike the people rejecting <>. But that seems to be what >I'm hearing here. I don't know where you get that reading. The RFC says, essentially, that if you're rejecting the additional addressees but you wish to allow continued deliveries to dribble the message in, you should return 4xx. If you're rejecting it as a policy violation such that messages with over a certain number of recipients will never be accepted by you, you reject it with a 5xx. They're behaving totally consistently with that. From list-managers-owner Mon Oct 22 20:49:58 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA17091; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:32:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from segfault.monkeys.com (246.dsl6660157.rstatic.surewest.net [66.60.157.246]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D551517EE0 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:32:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.monkeys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4600A639A for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:32:40 -0700 (PDT) To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Yahoo In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:58:43 -0400. <20011022205843.B17095@scadian.net> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:32:40 -0700 Message-ID: <16502.1003807960@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <20011022205843.B17095@scadian.net>, blaise@scadian.net wrote: >On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 02:43:58PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >> >> In message , >> Mitch Collinsworth wrote: >> >> >> (reason: 552 exceeded rcpt to max limit) >> >> (expanded from: :include:/usr/local/majordomo/Lists/wbmutbb-digest) >> >> >> >> I've tried making the Digest versions smaller in size but that doesn't se >em >> >to have corrected the problem. Anybody have any ideas? >> > >> >A "rcpt to max limit" would be the number of recipients you're >> >sending to at that site. Sendmail sends one copy of the message to >> >each destination MTA with all recipients listed in the envelope >> >headers (rcpt to:). The receiving sendmail will then deliver a >> >separate copy to each recipient. Sounds like yahoo don't understand >> >the difference between mail lists and spammers. >> >> More to the point, it is not entirely clear that the folks at Yahoo >> have either read or fully understood the following passage from RFC 2821: >> >> If an SMTP server has an implementation limit on the number of RCPT >> commands and this limit is exhausted, it MUST use a response code of >> 452 (but the client SHOULD also be prepared for a 552, as noted >> above). If the server has a configured site-policy limitation on the >> number of RCPT commands, it MAY instead use a 5XX response code. >> This would be most appropriate if the policy limitation was intended >> to apply if the total recipient count for a particular message body >> were enforced even if that message body was sent in multiple mail >> transactions. >> >> (My own opinion is that most probably, they simply screwed up, and they >> ought to be issuing 452 codes for excess RCPT TOs in a given transaction.) > >My opinion is that they read the RFC precisely and you missed a spot. >This does not seem to be an implementation limit but a configured site- >policy limitation (as far as we can tell). There's an easy way to find out if that is the case. First find out how many RCPT TOs (`N') before Yahoo gives the 552 response. Then take a message (any message) and try to send that exact message to Yahoo in `N' totally separate SMTP transactions. If you don't get 552 on the Nth transaction, when sending the messages using separate transactions, then I'm right. Otherwise you're right. That's what the quoted passage of the RFC appears to say. From list-managers-owner Tue Oct 23 03:21:25 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id DAA22336; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 03:04:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grassyhill.org (grassyhill.org [208.231.0.71]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B2FD17EE0 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 03:04:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.4] (isdn_dev [160.43.47.9]) by grassyhill.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f9NA3ga39094 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 06:03:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Envelope-To: Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 06:04:07 -0400 From: Tom Neff To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition Message-ID: <22972953.1003817047@[192.168.0.4]> In-Reply-To: <200110230800.BAA19914@honor.greatcircle.com> References: <200110230800.BAA19914@honor.greatcircle.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk JC Dill wrote: > On 10:21 AM 10/21/2001 -0400, Charlie Summers wrote: > >I can't use my own secured server to send mail while on the road > > I find it depressing that someone who manages mailing lists and has their > "own secured server" resorts to this lame excuse. If it's your own > secured server you have many different ways to authenticate yourself and > send thru it, including (but not limited to): > > SMTP Auth (only works if your network connection doesn't hijack port 25 > as is unfortunately becoming increasingly common on lame consumer > networks) You can also add authenticated ESMTP on a higher port that lame-o ISP's don't know to stop, e.g. O DaemonPortOptions=Port=9925, Name=MSA, M=E in your sendmail.cf. I find this very useful in the field. From list-managers-owner Wed Oct 24 05:26:58 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA14430; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 05:14:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from diskless7.axs2000.net (unknown [209.146.38.45]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AA9917EAF for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 05:14:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pond.com (ppp-086-3.verio.axs2000.net [64.80.86.3]) by diskless7.axs2000.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9OCCVM05616 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 08:12:31 -0400 Message-ID: <3BD6B1FE.CDA41FA8@pond.com> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 08:20:14 -0400 From: Keith Flippin Reply-To: kflippin@indole.net Organization: NE-Raves Administration X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Juno message size limit? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Back in '99 I recall learning that Juno set a maximum message size limit of somewhere around 63K, which caused problems for a few digest subscribers on my list. Anyone know if this is still the case or if there's a new number? I haven't any Juno subscribers at the moment, but I'd like to keep the welcome file that includes a warning for Juno people updated -- Geoff Capp Productions NE-Raves Administrator ChillOut DJ & Producer http://DrJesus.djcentral.com under construction Mantra -- Om Ah Hum Vajra Guru Padma Siddhi Hum From list-managers-owner Wed Oct 24 12:55:09 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA19887; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 12:47:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (glock.squawk.com [208.176.124.157]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE01F17EC2 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 12:47:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from toshiba.scifi.squawk.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AA1435013 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 15:47:22 -0400 (EDT) X-America-has-resolve: yes Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011024145452.046d2580@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 14:57:52 -0400 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition In-Reply-To: <22972953.1003817047@[192.168.0.4]> References: <200110230800.BAA19914@honor.greatcircle.com> <200110230800.BAA19914@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 06:04 AM 2001-10-23 -0400, Tom Neff wrote: You can also add authenticated ESMTP on a higher port that lame-o ISP's don't know to stop, e.g. > O DaemonPortOptions=Port=9925, Name=MSA, M=E > >in your sendmail.cf. I find this very useful in the field. The "submissions" port, port 587, seems to be the right port for this - it is designed for an smtp like interchange which is an "initial submission" of mail to a smtp server from what is ostensibly an end user (MUA) using smtp for mail injection, rather than MTA to MTA transmission of mail. -- War is an ugly thing, but it is not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made so by the exertions of better men than himself. -- John Stuart Mill Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com From list-managers-owner Thu Oct 25 16:53:57 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA05566; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 16:34:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7DF217ECF for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 16:34:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user-vcaunkv.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.94.159] helo=localhost) by snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 15wu15-0002Gx-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 16:34:27 -0700 Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 13:50:53 -0700 Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v472) From: "Michael C.Berch" To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011024145452.046d2580@127.0.0.1> Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.472) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wednesday, October 24, 2001, at 11:57 AM, Nick Simicich wrote: > At 06:04 AM 2001-10-23 -0400, Tom Neff wrote: > You can also add authenticated ESMTP on a higher port that lame-o ISP's > don't know to stop, e.g. > >> O DaemonPortOptions=Port=9925, Name=MSA, M=E >> in your sendmail.cf. I find this very useful in the field. > > The "submissions" port, port 587, seems to be the right port for this - > it is designed for an smtp like interchange which is an "initial > submission" of mail to a smtp server from what is ostensibly an end > user (MUA) using smtp for mail injection, rather than MTA to MTA > transmission of mail. The problem with this is that if it becomes widely used and known, ISPs will probably block that port, too, without thinking about it too much (and not realizing that it is not really much of a spam threat). Selecting a random high-numbered port seems like a better idea. Now if only the popular (non-open-source) mail clients would let you specify the outgoing SMTP destination port... -- Michael C. Berch mcb@postmodern.com / mcb@greatcircle.com From list-managers-owner Thu Oct 25 18:08:58 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA06441; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 17:56:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tom.iecc.com (tom.iecc.com [208.31.42.38]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D006717ECF for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 17:56:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 14625 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2001 20:56:22 -0400 Received: (ofmipd 208.31.42.38); 26 Oct 2001 00:56:00 -0000 Date: 25 Oct 2001 20:56:22 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Michael C.Berch" Cc: "list-managers@greatcircle.com" Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk PS: > Now if only the popular (non-open-source) mail clients would let you > specify the outgoing SMTP destination port... Outlook Express does on the mail setup menu under an Advanced button or something like that, and I think Outlook does too. Eudora does although you have to edit the EUDORA.INI setup file yourself. Netscape doesn't, phoo, although I suppose the sufficiently dedicated could fix that at mozilla.org. 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 Thu Oct 25 18:23:56 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA06415; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 17:54:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tom.iecc.com (tom.iecc.com [208.31.42.38]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5D97217ECF for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 17:54:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 14574 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2001 20:54:13 -0400 Received: (ofmipd 208.31.42.38); 26 Oct 2001 00:53:51 -0000 Date: 25 Oct 2001 20:54:13 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Michael C.Berch" Cc: "list-managers@greatcircle.com" Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > The "submissions" port, port 587, seems to be the right port for this - > > The problem with this is that if it becomes widely used and known, ISPs > will probably block that port, too, without thinking about it too much > (and not realizing that it is not really much of a spam threat). Port 587 is only supposed to be open to authenticated users via pop-before-send or SMTP AUTH or the like. Just leaving it open is a dreadful idea. If you're going to set up an open relay, I agree that you should hide it on a random port, but it'd be better not to do it at all. 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 Thu Oct 25 18:54:15 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA06976; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 18:42:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.vjs.org (mail.vjs.org [160.79.92.74]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4641A17ED5 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 18:42:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.250] (192.168.0.235) by mail.vjs.org with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.2); Thu, 25 Oct 2001 21:42:31 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 21:42:10 -0400 To: "Michael C.Berch" , list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Vince Sabio Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ** Sometime around 13:50 -0700 10/25/01, Michael C.Berch sent everyone: >Now if only the popular (non-open-source) mail clients would let you >specify the outgoing SMTP destination port... Eudora allows you to do that. Oh, but you said "popular".... ;-) Best, Vince (been using Eudora for nearly a decade now) From list-managers-owner Thu Oct 25 19:23:55 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA07369; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 19:09:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from raven.mail.pas.earthlink.net (raven.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.39]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8120917ED9 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 19:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user-vcaunkv.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.94.159] helo=localhost) by raven.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 15wwQc-0005UB-00; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 19:08:58 -0700 Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 19:08:57 -0700 Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v472) From: "Michael C.Berch" To: "list-managers@greatcircle.com" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <6A0A5574-C9B6-11D5-9F0E-003065F94B0A@postmodern.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.472) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thursday, October 25, 2001, at 05:56 PM, John R Levine wrote: >> Now if only the popular (non-open-source) mail clients would let you >> specify the outgoing SMTP destination port... > > Outlook Express does on the mail setup menu under an Advanced button or > something like that, and I think Outlook does too. Eudora does although > you have to edit the EUDORA.INI setup file yourself. Netscape doesn't, > phoo, although I suppose the sufficiently dedicated could fix that at > mozilla.org. Actually, I submitted that to the Mozilla Project a while ago. It got favourable comments in a couple of the internal newsgroups. It's sitting in Bugzilla somewhere; I don't know the current status. I do run developer builds of Mozilla as my web browser, but I switched from Netscape to Apple Mail for MacOS X (Mail.app) for my mail, and it does not support alternate SMTP destination ports. I'll send them the suggestion too. As for Port 587 etc., my assumption that all servers that are expected to be reached from arbitrary networks would be/should be secured. While traveling I have had to perform the annoying task of finding out what (client, hotel, show, etc.) network I was connected to, then ssh to my server, add that subnet to the permitted file for relaying, and then send the mail. Not worth the trouble. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@postmodern.com / mcb@greatcircle.com From list-managers-owner Thu Oct 25 20:39:13 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA08133; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 20:25:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ssa.slb.com (ssa.slb.com [163.185.18.208]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA47F17ED5 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 20:25:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alum.mit.edu ([163.185.169.212]) by ssa.slb.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-57516U3000L3000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 22:25:38 -0500 Message-ID: <3BD8D79D.94D29AFB@alum.mit.edu> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 23:26:28 -0400 From: Anne Judge Reply-To: anne.judge@alum.mit.edu Organization: Totally Disorganized X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "list-managers@greatcircle.com" Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I believe I once read that in Netscape you can specify a port by appending :[port#] to the server name - or something like that?? It's been a long time since I saw that & I didn't use it, so I can't be sure. Anne John R Levine wrote: > > > Now if only the popular (non-open-source) mail clients would let you > > specify the outgoing SMTP destination port... > > . . . Netscape doesn't, > phoo, although I suppose the sufficiently dedicated could fix that at > mozilla.org. From list-managers-owner Thu Oct 25 21:39:00 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA08810; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 21:20:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (glock.squawk.com [208.176.124.157]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1630E17ED5 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 21:20:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from toshiba.scifi.squawk.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 713223501C; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 00:20:44 -0400 (EDT) X-America-has-resolve: yes Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011026000519.01c5d4f8@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 00:06:32 -0400 To: "John R Levine" , "Michael C.Berch" From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition Cc: "list-managers@greatcircle.com" In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 08:54 PM 2001-10-25 -0400, John R Levine wrote: > > > The "submissions" port, port 587, seems to be the right port for this - > > > > The problem with this is that if it becomes widely used and known, ISPs > > will probably block that port, too, without thinking about it too much > > (and not realizing that it is not really much of a spam threat). > >Port 587 is only supposed to be open to authenticated users via >pop-before-send or SMTP AUTH or the like. Just leaving it open is a >dreadful idea. If you're going to set up an open relay, I agree that you >should hide it on a random port, but it'd be better not to do it at all. I agree - I never said that it should be "open", I listen on it, on one of my systems, but you have to authenticate using esmto AUTH to relay mail using it. -- War is an ugly thing, but it is not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made so by the exertions of better men than himself. -- John Stuart Mill Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com From list-managers-owner Fri Oct 26 07:39:09 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA17962; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 07:25:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pop2b.ripco.com (pop2b.ripco.com [209.100.227.27]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E5A17ED8 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 07:25:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidscarf (cpe-66-1-8-251.il.sprintbbd.net [66.1.8.251]) by pop2b.ripco.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id f9QEPvG27820 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:25:57 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <004a01c15e2a$15734dc0$fb080142@plaidscarf> From: "David W. Tamkin" To: References: Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:22:01 -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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Michael Berch wrote, | Now if only the popular (non-open-source) mail clients would let you | specify the outgoing SMTP destination port... Outlook Express has a selection for it; Netscape Messenger and Pocomail can be told to use a different port by appending the number (with a colon) to the name of the SMTP server. My understanding about Eudora is that you have to change the port number in a configuration file, and it will apply to all the SMTP servers you use, so Eudora makes it impossible to send through port 25 of one server but port 587 of another, for example. It's been over a year since I read that, so maybe a more recent release of Eudora has improved that. From list-managers-owner Fri Oct 26 10:09:02 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA19390; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:52:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ultradns.com (mail.ultradns.net [204.74.100.34]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D611517EE3 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:52:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 1814 invoked from network); 26 Oct 2001 16:52:33 -0000 Received: from nat-external.ultradns.net (HELO jcdill-latitude.vo.cnchost.com) (204.74.100.10) by mail.ultradns.net with SMTP; 26 Oct 2001 16:52:33 -0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011026092621.0239ae08@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: inet-list@vo.cnchost.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:46:42 -0700 To: From: JC Dill Subject: Re: Automated bounce recognition In-Reply-To: <004a01c15e2a$15734dc0$fb080142@plaidscarf> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 09:22 AM 10/26/2001 -0500, David W. Tamkin wrote: >My understanding about Eudora is that you have to change the port number in >a configuration file, and it will apply to all the SMTP servers you use, so >Eudora makes it impossible to send through port 25 of one server but port >587 of another, for example. It's been over a year since I read that, so >maybe a more recent release of Eudora has improved that. Most of the Eudora setting changes can be made in either of 2 places in the eudora.ini file, you can make the change in the [settings] section, or under a particular personality's section. If you put POPPort=111 in [settings], all POP connections will be via port 110. If you put POPPort=111 in your [personal] personality, and PoOPPort=112 in your [work] personality section, then each personality (email account) will check via the indicated port. I use this to tunnel my POP connections from my laptop to my office SSH server, and then spit the POP connection out the back side of my office's SSH server (where there's much less chance of someone intercepting my unencrypted POP password) to my ISP's POP server. The connection goes into SSH on port 111 or 112, and goes out the ssh server at the other end on 110 to the appropriate POP server by using SecureCRT's port forwarding on the SSH session. I have not tried to setup SMTP on a different port, but I believe it works exactly the same way, that you can put SMTPPort=587 in the [settings] section and it will apply to all SMTP connections, or you can put it in a personality's section, and it will apply to just that personality. Note: Eudora's .ini file is case insensitive regarding the settings, so popport and PopPort and POPPort all work the same. jc