From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 6 11:09:05 2003 Received: from jerusalem.christianitytoday.com (jerusalem.christianitytoday.com [12.158.13.148]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F4C2195AEE for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:09:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from IO06 ([12.24.216.130]) by christianitytoday.com ([12.158.13.148]) with SMTP (MDaemon.PRO.v6.0.7.R) for ; Mon, 06 Jan 2003 13:08:59 -0600 From: "Tatum, Rich" To: Subject: checking for spammishness Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 13:08:20 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20021226213952.04beb738@199.74.151.1> X-MDRemoteIP: 12.24.216.130 X-Return-Path: rich@ChristianityToday.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: list-managers@greatcircle.com X-Archive-Number: 200301/1 X-Sequence-Number: 1007 We've heard of the free SiteSell spam checker on this list before. But Lyris has joined the fray: (Free) Lyris Content Checker http://www.lyris.com/contentchecker/ (submit via web form) (Free) SiteSell Spam Checker http://spamcheck.sitesell.com/ (submit to spamcheck@sitesell.net) Regards, Rich -- Richard Tatum Website manager for Christianity Today International email: rich@christianitytoday.com web: christianitytoday.com aol im: richtatum -Stephen L. Talbott From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 6 21:43:52 2003 Received: from mail.wooz.org (dsl093-082-039.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.82.39]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3DC2195A3F for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 21:43:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.wooz.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 5D2101BF354; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 00:43:10 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15898.26862.258286.115315@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 00:43:10 -0500 To: Subject: Mailman 2.1 X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 11) "Native Windows TTY Support" XEmacs Lucid From: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw) X-Attribution: BAW X-Oblique-Strategy: Get your neck massaged X-Url: http://barry.wooz.org X-Archive-Number: 200301/2 X-Sequence-Number: 1008 BTW, I forgot announced it here, but I did release Mailman 2.1 just before the new year. Tons of new stuff. Internationalization. Etc. Please see http://www.list.org for details Cheers, -Barry From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Jan 7 14:22:14 2003 Received: from web11402.mail.yahoo.com (web11402.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.131.232]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 76171195AAC for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 14:22:12 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20030107222212.51366.qmail@web11402.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [63.89.31.196] by web11402.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 07 Jan 2003 14:22:12 PST Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 14:22:12 -0800 (PST) From: Christian Sanelli Subject: can Majordomo do this? To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Cc: Christian Sanelli MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Archive-Number: 200301/3 X-Sequence-Number: 1009 Can Majordomo do this for me?: (1) Have people go to my webpage and sign up for a mailing list, entering their e-mail and what types of items they're interested in buying (2) After confirming their e-mail, I want to send each person a welcome e-mail with a list of items that I currently have in my database matching their search criteria (3) Then, on a regular basis, I search my database for any new items that match any subscriber's search criteria, and send further e-mails if needed. Thank you, Christian Sanelli __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Jan 7 14:32:52 2003 Received: from web41005.mail.yahoo.com (web41005.mail.yahoo.com [66.218.93.4]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AB490195AAC for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 14:32:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20030107223247.21853.qmail@web41005.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [136.152.196.61] by web41005.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 07 Jan 2003 14:32:47 PST Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 14:32:47 -0800 (PST) From: Mark Giorgi Subject: Can MD be set to allow new subscribers to be added w/o confirmation? To: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Archive-Number: 200301/4 X-Sequence-Number: 1010 Everywhere that I've run into Majordomo in use, Majordomo is set to confirm each subscription request by requiring the would-be subscriber to respond to an automated subscription-confirmation email. Can this feature be turned off by the Majordomo administrator, thereby allowing people to be added directly to a list, without having to respond to a confirmation request? __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Jan 7 14:33:00 2003 Received: from mighty.grot.org (66-117-150-96.web.lmi.net [66.117.150.96]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5889195AAC for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 14:29:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by mighty.grot.org (Postfix, from userid 515) id 874885DCC; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 14:29:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 14:29:35 -0800 From: Aditya To: Christian Sanelli Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: can Majordomo do this? Message-ID: <20030107222935.GA31125@mighty.grot.org> References: <20030107222212.51366.qmail@web11402.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030107222212.51366.qmail@web11402.mail.yahoo.com> X-Archive-Number: 200301/5 X-Sequence-Number: 1011 Hi Christian, On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 02:22:12PM -0800, Christian Sanelli wrote: > Can Majordomo do this for me?: > > (1) Have people go to my webpage and sign up for a > mailing list, entering their e-mail and what > types of items they're interested in buying > (2) After confirming their e-mail, I want to send > each person a welcome e-mail with a list of > items that I currently have in my database > matching their search criteria > (3) Then, on a regular basis, I search my database > for any new items that match any subscriber's > search criteria, and send further e-mails if > needed. No, Majordomo cannot do this for you "out-of-the-box" as it wasn't designed for this sort of thing -- it is best to use Majordomo to send the *same* message to many people. What your described need requires a bit of programming and sends a customized message to each recipient -- I've built exactly what you are looking for, but it doesn't use (nor does it require) a mailing list manager like Majordomo. We can discuss this further over private email if you would like as it is off-topic for this list. Hope that helps, Thanks, Adi From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Jan 7 14:58:46 2003 Received: from falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net (falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.74]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1400A196025 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 14:58:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from 24-205-154-98.riv-eres.charterpipeline.net ([24.205.154.98] helo=lehel.goldmark.private) by falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18W2gD-0005ZP-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 07 Jan 2003 14:58:41 -0800 Received: from betty.goldmark.private ([192.168.1.51]) by lehel.goldmark.private with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 18W2gD-0000ld-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 07 Jan 2003 14:58:41 -0800 Received: from jeffrey (helo=localhost) by betty.goldmark.private with local-esmtp (Exim 4.10) id H8D95S-000LDC-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 07 Jan 2003 14:58:40 -0800 Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 14:58:40 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey Goldberg X-X-Sender: jeffrey@betty.goldmark.private Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg To: List Managers Mailing list Subject: Re: Can MD be set to allow new subscribers to be added w/o confirmation? In-Reply-To: <20030107223247.21853.qmail@web41005.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: References: <20030107223247.21853.qmail@web41005.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200301/6 X-Sequence-Number: 1012 On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Mark Giorgi wrote: > Everywhere that I've run into Majordomo in use, > Majordomo is set to confirm each subscription > request by requiring the would-be subscriber to > respond to an automated subscription-confirmation > email. Yes. And there is a reason for that. So before you do something that everyone else has decided is a very bad idea, be sure that you really understand all of the issues. Now if you have some other way to ensure that no subscription request is forged then maybe you can do with out this. > Can this feature be turned off by the Majordomo administrator Yes. Read the configure file for the list. It's clearly explained in the comments -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice Hate spam? Boycott MCI! http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/anti-spam/mci/ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Jan 7 18:34:57 2003 Received: from parrot.squawk.com (parrot.squawk.com [64.244.111.110]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 953C4195A33 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 18:34:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from toshiba.scifi.squawk.com (toshiba.squawk.com [199.74.151.118]) by parrot.squawk.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6810625B20D; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 21:34:47 -0500 (EST) X-America-Has-Resolve: yes X-Message-Flag: Microsoft Outlook is insecure. Upgrade your Mail Program Now! Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030107205109.24d647c0@199.74.151.1> X-Sender: njs@199.74.151.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 21:10:33 -0500 To: Mark Giorgi , list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: Can MD be set to allow new subscribers to In-Reply-To: <20030107223247.21853.qmail@web41005.mail.yahoo.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-1FB330E6; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archive-Number: 200301/7 X-Sequence-Number: 1013 At 02:32 PM 2003-01-07 -0800, Mark Giorgi wrote: >Everywhere that I've run into Majordomo in use, >Majordomo is set to confirm each subscription >request by requiring the would-be subscriber to >respond to an automated subscription-confirmation >email. > >Can this feature be turned off by the Majordomo >administrator, thereby allowing people to be added >directly to a list, without having to respond >to a confirmation request? Yes, but only someone who was primarily an Internet vandal would do that. At one point, it was common practice. The earliest versions of Majordomo did not even have confirmation as an option. You have to understand that the main reason that the current system of validating subscriptions was undertaken because people developed tools such as "upyours" which would sign people up for hundreds of mailing lists. The tools knew how to interact with majordomo and listserv, and so forth, and would actually query sites to determine what lists they had, and then they would sign the victims up for hundreds of mailing lists, rendering their e-mail accounts unusable. Systems that would simply filter or bounce the mail were unknown, because mail was looked at as something that individual people sent to others (or that you got from mailing lists that you wanted to read). The main point was to make it reliable. Filters, which would, perforce, make it less reliable, were, by and large eschewed. However, these days, running unverified lists is considered to be the hallmark of someone being a spammer. Since anyone can sign someone up for one of these lists, and people frequently do, the usual answer is, "Someone must have signed you up." to the "How did I get on this list?" query from the victim. Whether the site manager signed up everyone they found in a web search of the world based on a subject, or whether one of your friends really signed you up, well, that answer usually goes unknown. In the anti-spam community, the answer is pretty cut and dried: You run unverified mailing lists, you are a spammer. Pure and simple. What started out as a tool to defend innocent third parties from Internet vandals has become an anti-spam tool. If you do start running unverified mailing lists, you can easily get listed on such as the RBL and so forth. The simple answer is, "Don't do it. It seems like a good idea, but it is a really stupid thing to do, unless you are a spammer." -- If you doubt that magnet therapy works, I put to you this observation: When refrigerators were first invented, in the 1940s, they were rather unreliable, but then they became significantly more reliable. The basic design of the refrigerator did not change, and we all know that quality was important back then, so I doubt that newer refrigerators are made better. Refrigerators have become more reliable because of the rise of the refrigerator magnet. Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Jan 7 18:51:34 2003 Received: from mshield (shield2.cc.nd.edu [129.74.250.49]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5E787195AE9 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 18:51:33 -0800 (PST) Received: FROM nd.edu BY mshield ; Tue Jan 07 21:47:04 2003 -0500 Message-ID: <3E1B9231.7060502@nd.edu> Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 21:51:29 -0500 From: Paul Russell Organization: University of Notre Dame User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Giorgi Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Can MD be set to allow new subscribers to be added w/o confirmation? References: <20030107223247.21853.qmail@web41005.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200301/8 X-Sequence-Number: 1014 Most mailing list management software allows a list owner to configure a list to use unconfirmed subscriptions, however, it is A Bad Idea to choose this configuration, because it makes the list vulnerable to forged subscription requests, and places the list server at risk to be blacklisted. If your list is hosted on your personal workstation, your decision to use unconfirmed subscriptions will probably affect only you and your list subscribers. On the other hand, if your list is hosted on your service provider's list server, your decision may affect a very large number of people, and could put you in violation of your service provider's acceptable use policy. Our list service policy explicitly prohibits the use of unconfirmed open subscriptions. Reference: -- Paul Russell Senior Systems Administrator University of Notre Dame Mark Giorgi wrote: > Everywhere that I've run into Majordomo in use, > Majordomo is set to confirm each subscription > request by requiring the would-be subscriber to > respond to an automated subscription-confirmation > email. > > Can this feature be turned off by the Majordomo > administrator, thereby allowing people to be added > directly to a list, without having to respond > to a confirmation request? From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Jan 7 22:18:15 2003 Received: from yancy.pkiclue.com (unknown [209.172.115.117]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43EF1195A0C for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 22:18:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from dustpuppytoo (IDENT:root@[127.0.0.1]) by yancy.pkiclue.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA08835 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 22:21:47 -0800 Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20030107222046.01c2d530@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: inet-list%vo.cnchost.com@127.0.0.1@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 22:25:50 -0800 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: JC Dill Subject: Re: Can MD be set to allow new subscribers to be added w/o In-Reply-To: <3E1B9231.7060502@nd.edu> References: <20030107223247.21853.qmail@web41005.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200301/9 X-Sequence-Number: 1015 At 09:51 PM 01/07/2003 -0500, Paul Russell wrote: >Most mailing list management software allows a list owner to >configure >a list to use unconfirmed subscriptions, however, it is A Bad Idea to Agreed! >choose this configuration, because it makes the list vulnerable to >forged subscription requests, and places the list server at risk to be >blacklisted. If your list is hosted on your personal workstation, your >decision to use unconfirmed subscriptions will probably affect only you >and your list subscribers. It could also affect your connectivity, and if your personal workstation is at work, your employer's connectivity. It is not necessary to have your list hosted for this type of list management to be a violation of your ISP's TOS. Running this type of list on your own machine at your end of the connection is also a violation unless your ISP is "spam friendly". If a responsible ISP gets complaints that your machine is spewing spam (e.g. sending bulk unsolicited email to people who didn't sign up for it, due to the fact that you didn't require confirmations for all list subscriptions), they are not going to just let you keep on doing it. Some ISPs shoot first and ask questions later, so the first you hear about it (from your ISP) might be when you can't connect to the Internet because your link has been cut off. jc From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Jan 8 04:54:58 2003 Received: from mail.wooz.org (dsl093-082-039.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.82.39]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E510195F9C for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 04:54:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.wooz.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 8872C1BF354; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 07:54:57 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15900.8097.370737.402005@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 07:54:57 -0500 To: Paul Russell Cc: Mark Giorgi , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Can MD be set to allow new subscribers to be added w/o confirmation? References: <3E1B9231.7060502@nd.edu> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 11) "Native Windows TTY Support" XEmacs Lucid From: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw) X-Attribution: BAW X-Oblique-Strategy: Assemble some of the elements in a group and treat the group X-Url: http://barry.wooz.org X-Archive-Number: 200301/10 X-Sequence-Number: 1016 >>>>> "PR" == Paul Russell writes: PR> Most mailing list management software allows a list owner to PR> configure a list to use unconfirmed subscriptions, however, it PR> is A Bad Idea to choose this configuration Mailman allows open subscriptions, but only if the site admin enables the feature. It is turned off by default, for all the reasons stated here. -Barry From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jan 9 07:54:01 2003 Received: from mail3.tpgi.com.au (mail.tpgi.com.au [203.12.160.59]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE421198E3D for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 07:23:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from Wallaby (bal-56k-145.tpgi.com.au [203.29.138.145]) by mail3.tpgi.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h09FNUi30561; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 02:23:33 +1100 From: "Andrew Billinghurst" To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 02:23:30 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Looking for explanatory for Precedence line Cc: billinghurst@tpg.com.au Message-ID: <3E1E2EA2.5914.3A8B527@localhost> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.02a) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body X-Archive-Number: 200301/11 X-Sequence-Number: 1017 I have been asked some questions about the mailing list header line Precedence: ... after having mail blocked by ISPs for use of the extension Precedence: junk and Precedence: bulk, both of which I understand are very appropriate for mailing lists. Now I can find brief reference to their use in the new Sendmail book BUT I am unable to find any RFC for their use from first principles or other places where I can read about these header lines in depth. Anyone got any pointers? Thanks. Regards, Andrew From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jan 9 10:26:58 2003 Received: from jerusalem.christianitytoday.com (jerusalem.christianitytoday.com [12.158.13.148]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F6CB1966E3 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:26:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from IO06 ([12.24.216.130]) by christianitytoday.com ([12.158.13.148]) with SMTP (MDaemon.PRO.v6.0.7.R) for ; Thu, 09 Jan 2003 12:25:58 -0600 From: "Tatum, Rich" To: Subject: Re: Looking for explanatory for Precedence line Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:25:16 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal X-MDRemoteIP: 12.24.216.130 X-Return-Path: rich@ChristianityToday.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: list-managers@greatcircle.com X-Archive-Number: 200301/12 X-Sequence-Number: 1018 My understanding is that the Precedence header is an arbitrary convention and IS NOT required as defined by any RFC. Apparently, Eric Allman (author of Sendmail and the original *nix vacation program) created it as a means of identifying which messages his vacation autoresponder should not respond to. As with many things good and wonderful, SPAM broadcasters are ruining the usefulness of such a header comment. (What spammer in their right mind willingly identifies their spam as spam?) Many anti-spam filters automatically flag anything with the following headers: Precedence: list Precedence: bulk Precedence: junk So, if it weren't for spam, these would be useful. But some list sending applications, like Listserv, haven't implemented this as a feature because they are non-standard. Lyris doesn't require the precedence header, but you can add it if you want. This is the only relevant comment I could find from the RFCs: Precedence: Non-standard, controversial. Sometimes used as a priority value which can influence transmission speed and delivery. Common values are "bulk" and "first-class". Other uses is to control automatic replies and to control return-of-content facilities, and to stop mailing list loops. RFC 2076 Common Internet Message Header Fields http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2076.html Regards, Rich. -- Richard Tatum Website manager for Christianity Today International email: rich@christianitytoday.com web: christianitytoday.com aol im: richtatum «The flood of careless, unconsidered, cheap words, is the greatest enemy of the profound word» —Stephen L. Talbott From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jan 9 15:23:24 2003 Received: from mail.wooz.org (dsl093-082-039.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.82.39]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 393991959E9 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 15:23:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.wooz.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id CE13F1BF354; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 18:23:24 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15902.1132.653573.779069@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 18:23:24 -0500 To: "Andrew Billinghurst" Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Looking for explanatory for Precedence line References: <3E1E2EA2.5914.3A8B527@localhost> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 11) "Native Windows TTY Support" XEmacs Lucid From: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw) X-Attribution: BAW X-Oblique-Strategy: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should (given by Jane Rodgers) X-Url: http://barry.wooz.org X-Archive-Number: 200301/13 X-Sequence-Number: 1019 >>>>> "AB" == Andrew Billinghurst writes: AB> I have been asked some questions about the mailing list header AB> line Precedence: ... after having mail blocked by ISPs for AB> use of the extension Precedence: junk and Precedence: bulk, AB> both of which I understand are very appropriate for mailing AB> lists. AB> Now I can find brief reference to their use in the new AB> Sendmail book BUT I am unable to find any RFC for their use AB> from first principles or other places where I can read about AB> these header lines in depth. AB> Anyone got any pointers? The only one I'm aware of is a mention in RFC 2076, which says: 3.9 Quality information Sometimes used as a priority Precedence: Non-standard, value which can influence controversial, transmission speed and delivery. discouraged. Common values are "bulk" and "first-class". Other uses is to control automatic replies and to control return-of-content facilities, and to stop mailing list loops. This RFC was written in 1997 and I'd say by now this header is a little less of at least the "controversial" and "discouraged" tags. Seems pretty common for mailing list managers, and darn near required for vacation programs. :) -Barry From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jan 9 17:14:53 2003 Received: from ntcorp.com (ntcorp.com [198.65.128.165]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CDCF1959E9 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 17:14:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (fidelman@localhost) by ntcorp.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0A1EiG07989; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 20:14:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 20:14:44 -0500 (EST) From: X-X-Sender: To: Cc: Subject: Re: Looking for explanatory for Precedence line In-Reply-To: <15902.1132.653573.779069@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200301/14 X-Sequence-Number: 1020 > AB> I have been asked some questions about the mailing list header > AB> line Precedence: ... after having mail blocked by ISPs for > AB> use of the extension Precedence: junk and Precedence: bulk, > AB> both of which I understand are very appropriate for mailing > AB> lists. > > AB> Now I can find brief reference to their use in the new > AB> Sendmail book BUT I am unable to find any RFC for their use > AB> from first principles or other places where I can read about > AB> these header lines in depth. > > AB> Anyone got any pointers? Look at documentation for sendmail (in this case, I'm pretty much quoting from the O'Reilly Sendmail book). Sendmail's config file lets you use precedence in at least two ways: - to control a message's position among other messages in the queue, when the queue - to control whether or not a bounced message should be returned to its sender From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jan 9 22:34:37 2003 Received: from mx2.biglist.com (westside.urbanblight.com [216.223.208.40]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AC15C195A81 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 22:34:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 81299 invoked by uid 601); 10 Jan 2003 06:34:34 -0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 01:34:34 -0500 From: Omar Thameen To: "Barry A. Warsaw" Cc: Andrew Billinghurst , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Looking for explanatory for Precedence line Message-ID: <20030110013434.A65893@westside.urbanblight.com> References: <3E1E2EA2.5914.3A8B527@localhost> <15902.1132.653573.779069@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <15902.1132.653573.779069@gargle.gargle.HOWL>; from bwarsaw@python.org on Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:23:24PM -0500 X-Archive-Number: 200301/15 X-Sequence-Number: 1021 On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:23:24PM -0500, Barry A. Warsaw wrote: > > >>>>> "AB" == Andrew Billinghurst writes: > > AB> I have been asked some questions about the mailing list header > AB> line Precedence: ... after having mail blocked by ISPs for > AB> use of the extension Precedence: junk and Precedence: bulk, > AB> both of which I understand are very appropriate for mailing > AB> lists. [...] > This RFC was written in 1997 and I'd say by now this header is a > little less of at least the "controversial" and "discouraged" tags. > Seems pretty common for mailing list managers, and darn near required > for vacation programs. :) I'll second that notion. There are a number of poorly written auto-responders whose only saving grace is that they spot a Precedence line and don't reply, saving everyone a mail loop. Out of curiosity, which ISPs are blocking based on this header? Omar From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jan 9 22:59:33 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD2F8195A77 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 22:56:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h0A6uVLp007692; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 22:56:31 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 22:56:30 -0800 Subject: Re: Looking for explanatory for Precedence line Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "Barry A. Warsaw" , Andrew Billinghurst , list-managers@greatcircle.com To: Omar Thameen From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <20030110013434.A65893@westside.urbanblight.com> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200301/16 X-Sequence-Number: 1022 On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 10:34 PM, Omar Thameen wrote: > Out of curiosity, which ISPs are blocking based on this header? > I use precedence headers extensively in the email I manage. Basically, nobody blocks on this header these days. There might be a few personal domains that do something this stupid, but then, I know some personal domains that block stuff Bcc;ed to them, too. it's frankly not a significant problem. the precedence header is in pretty much endemic use. chuq -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ He doesn't have ulcers, but he's a carrier. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jan 9 23:09:57 2003 Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.232]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F1A5195A77 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 23:09:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from 24-205-154-98.riv-eres.charterpipeline.net ([24.205.154.98] helo=lehel.goldmark.private) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18WtId-0005Mj-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 09 Jan 2003 23:09:51 -0800 Received: from betty.goldmark.private ([192.168.1.51]) by lehel.goldmark.private with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 18WtId-0001aH-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 09 Jan 2003 23:09:51 -0800 Received: from jeffrey (helo=localhost) by betty.goldmark.private with local-esmtp (Exim 4.10) id H8HL8F-000M84-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 09 Jan 2003 23:09:51 -0800 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 23:09:51 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey Goldberg X-X-Sender: jeffrey@betty.goldmark.private Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg To: List Managers Mailing list Subject: Re: Looking for explanatory for Precedence line In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200301/17 X-Sequence-Number: 1023 On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 mfidelman@ntcorp.com wrote: > Sendmail's config file lets you use precedence in at least two ways: > > - to control a message's position among other messages in the queue, when > the queue > - to control whether or not a bounced message should be returned to its > sender The exim documentation has an example of using these headers to not send warning messages (eg, message delayed -- still queueing) for bulk, list, and junk Precedence messages. Failure notices get sent, but not "will keep trying" notices. That is a great relief to list managers who really only want to see the delivery failures and not the dozen warnings that come before a failure. By the way, I always thought that the origin of Precedence was in UUCP. I really doubt it was invented for vacation. -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice Hate spam? Boycott MCI! http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/anti-spam/mci/ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jan 9 23:48:37 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D0CF195A77 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 23:48:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h0A7mULp008815; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 23:48:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 23:48:29 -0800 Subject: Re: Looking for explanatory for Precedence line Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: List Managers Mailing list To: Jeffrey Goldberg From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200301/18 X-Sequence-Number: 1024 On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 11:09 PM, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > By the way, I always thought that the origin of Precedence was in UUCP. > I really doubt it was invented for vacation. > It was never attached to UUCP that I knew, and I was one of Sun's sendmail and uucp hacks back in the dark ages. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech, Apple IS&T E-mail systems chuq@apple.com From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Jan 10 06:24:59 2003 Received: from mail.wooz.org (dsl093-082-039.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.82.39]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8A3B195F62 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 06:24:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.wooz.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id E14421BF354; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 09:24:56 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15902.55224.653869.394154@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 09:24:56 -0500 To: Jeffrey Goldberg Cc: List Managers Mailing list Subject: Re: Looking for explanatory for Precedence line References: X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 11) "Native Windows TTY Support" XEmacs Lucid From: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw) X-Attribution: BAW X-Oblique-Strategy: Look at the order in which you do things. X-Url: http://barry.wooz.org X-Archive-Number: 200301/19 X-Sequence-Number: 1025 >>>>> "JG" == Jeffrey Goldberg writes: JG> The exim documentation has an example of using these headers JG> to not send warning messages (eg, message delayed -- still JG> queueing) for bulk, list, and junk Precedence messages. JG> Failure notices get sent, but not "will keep trying" notices. Oh yes, I'd forgotten about that. Huge, huge win. In fact, I think some earlier version of Exim came with this disabled and it caused us no end of headaches. I believe all modern Eximen have this enabled by default. -Barry From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Jan 10 08:50:35 2003 Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.232]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98370195AC3 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:50:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from 24-205-154-98.riv-eres.charterpipeline.net ([24.205.154.98] helo=lehel.goldmark.private) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18X2Mb-0003rW-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:50:33 -0800 Received: from betty.goldmark.private ([192.168.1.51]) by lehel.goldmark.private with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 18X2Mb-0001lC-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:50:33 -0800 Received: from jeffrey (helo=localhost) by betty.goldmark.private with local-esmtp (Exim 4.10) id H8IC49-000MBP-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:50:33 -0800 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:50:33 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey Goldberg X-X-Sender: jeffrey@betty.goldmark.private Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg To: List Managers Mailing list Subject: Re: Looking for explanatory for Precedence line In-Reply-To: <15902.55224.653869.394154@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Message-ID: References: <15902.55224.653869.394154@gargle.gargle.HOWL> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200301/20 X-Sequence-Number: 1026 On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Barry A. Warsaw wrote: > >>>>> "JG" == Jeffrey Goldberg writes: > > JG> The exim documentation has an example of using these headers > JG> to not send warning messages > Oh yes, I'd forgotten about that. Huge, huge win. Indeed. > In fact, I think some earlier version of Exim came with this disabled > and it caused us no end of headaches. I believe all modern Eximen > have this enabled by default. I've never seen this in the default exim configuration file. But maybe some in debian distributions its been used by default. However, the example delay_warning_condition = \ ${if match{$h_precedence:}{(?i)bulk|list|junk}{no}{yes}} Is provided in the documentation. Any time, as a list owner, I see a warning message from an exim system, I will point the postmaster at that site to this part of the exim documentation. I wish other MTAs had this capacity and that more people used it. -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice Hate spam? Boycott MCI! http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/anti-spam/mci/ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Jan 14 07:25:35 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C364A1963E6 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 07:25:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h0EFPDSE013704; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 07:25:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 07:25:11 -0800 Subject: update on: AOL dropping e-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) From: Chuq Von Rospach To: Chuq Von Rospach Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <5F26A28A-27D4-11D7-8B3B-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200301/21 X-Sequence-Number: 1027 FYI for those that are interested, I've posted an update on my earlier note on AOL dropping e-mail. I wish I had good news, but... chuq -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ But I can hear the sound Of slamming doors and folding chairs And that's a sound they'll never know From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Jan 14 09:08:12 2003 Received: from celery.tssi.com (celery.tssi.com [198.147.197.6]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2ABF4195F8D for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:08:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 22508 invoked by uid 1000); 14 Jan 2003 17:08:08 -0000 Message-ID: <20030114170808.22506.qmail@celery.tssi.com> From: nolan@celery.tssi.com Subject: update on: AOL dropping e-mail To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:08:08 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200301/22 X-Sequence-Number: 1028 > FYI for those that are interested, I've posted an update on my earlier > note on AOL dropping e-mail. I wish I had good news, but... > > I don't run big lists (my largest has under 1000 total subscribers at this time, though there are days in which it handles over 100 messages, also not large by comparison to other lists). I am getting periodic queries from my AOL subscribers about the status of their subscription. Their accounts appear fine at this end, and I don't see any bounces logged, so I assume mail is being dropped at AOL. (Curiously, the non-bulk traffic seems far less likely to get dropped.) It is probably not related, but there are reports surfacing of problems with posting to USENET groups from AOL, posts apparently were showing up on AOL but weren't getting to the rest of USENET. This does not appear to be affecting inbound news traffic, and it may be corrected by now. I also have read several published reports which suggest that AOL has trimmed a large number of support staff positions. This may be more likely to affect response times and the competence or knowledge level of technical support rather than cause specific service problems such as those referred to by Chuq or myself. -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 20 16:09:00 2003 Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A06E195F75 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:08:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from h-66-167-135-83.phndaz91.covad.net ([66.167.135.83] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18alyM-0006nl-00 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:08:58 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030120170830.0300ee00@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:09:00 -0700 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Bob Bish Subject: Is there anybody out there? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200301/23 X-Sequence-Number: 1029 Is there any activity on this list at all? ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 20 16:50:31 2003 Received: from host3.ctc.net (host3.mail.vnet.net [166.82.1.68]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6DCD195AE2 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:50:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net ([166.82.1.7]) by host3.ctc.net (InterMail vK.4.03.05.03 201-232-132-103 license 2d687b22c655f23831a2faa19b737467) with ESMTP id <20030121004943.FMPT1016.host3@katie.vnet.net> for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:49:43 -0500 Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0L0hWo00995 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:43:32 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:43:32 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: Subject: Re: Is there anybody out there? In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030120170830.0300ee00@pop.earthlink.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200301/24 X-Sequence-Number: 1030 On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Bob Bish wrote: > Is there any activity on this list at all? Not much activity of late. Everything must be running smoothly in list admin land. - murr - From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 20 17:08:47 2003 Received: from lists.apple.com (lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C66F195F87 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:08:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (A17-216-21-175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by lists.apple.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0L17RJ22071; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:07:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:07:31 -0800 Subject: Re: Is there anybody out there? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: To: murr rhame From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200301/25 X-Sequence-Number: 1031 On Monday, January 20, 2003, at 04:43 PM, murr rhame wrote: > Not much activity of late. Everything must be running smoothly > in list admin land. > (laughs hysterical, but has no time to write about it... giggle) -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ But when that last guitar's been packed away You know that I still want to play So just make sure you got it all set to go Before you come for my piano From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 20 17:36:08 2003 Received: from mail3.panix.com (mail3.panix.com [166.84.1.74]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C879195FDF for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:36:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from panix1.panix.com (panix1.panix.com [166.84.1.1]) by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2026F98AF0 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:36:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from dattier@localhost) by panix1.panix.com (8.11.6/8.8.8/PanixN1.0) id h0L1a5p22423 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:36:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200301210136.h0L1a5p22423@panix1.panix.com> Subject: apologies for autoresponder To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:36:05 -0600 (CST) From: "David W. Tamkin" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200301/26 X-Sequence-Number: 1032 A thousand apologies to any poster here who was subjected to my autoresponder. I hope it is shut off now until I figure out what went wrong. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 20 19:54:22 2003 Received: from smtp02.wlv.untd.com (smtp02.wlv.untd.com [209.247.163.58]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C58FE195B10 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:54:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 12070 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2003 03:38:53 -0000 Received: from dialup-65.59.87.110.dial1.tampa1.level3.net (HELO netzero.net) (65.59.87.110) by smtp02.wlv.untd.com with SMTP; 21 Jan 2003 03:38:53 -0000 Message-ID: <3E2CC0B7.5070607@netzero.net> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 22:38:31 -0500 From: Kirk Bailey Organization: Silas Dent Memorial Cabal of ERIS Esoteric and hot dog boiling society User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Is there anybody out there? References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030120170830.0300ee00@pop.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200301/27 X-Sequence-Number: 1033 Who, me? Bob Bish wrote: > Is there any activity on this list at all? > > ...Bob > > > -- end Respectfully, Kirk D Bailey "Thou Art Free." - Eris From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Jan 21 15:54:52 2003 Received: from smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl (smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.139]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D710195FD9 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:54:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from [24.132.50.105] (node13269.a2000.nl [24.132.50.105]) by smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id h0LNskGA025818 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:54:46 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: loekjehe@pop.xs4all.nl Message-Id: Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:54:09 +0100 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Loek Jehee Subject: AOL blocks mailing list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Archive-Number: 200301/28 X-Sequence-Number: 1034 Dear all, I administer a Buddhist mailing list of 1100 subscribers. Never had any problems so far, running a Majordomo script on my ISP. Only recently I get lots of messages from AOL subscribers (and also some Compuserve ones) that they don't receive the list messages anymore. I followed the thread on this list-managers platform and am curious to hear any recent advice on this. I now decided to forward the instructions on putting the list's Email address in the "People I Know" address section. Any other suggestions welcome! Loek From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Jan 21 16:54:45 2003 Received: from mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net (mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.48]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4646F1961F4 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:54:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from h-69-3-76-82.phndaz91.covad.net ([69.3.76.82] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18b9AA-0001L2-00; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:54:42 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030121175402.00bb44c0@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:54:36 -0700 To: Loek Jehee , list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Bob Bish Subject: Re: AOL blocks mailing list In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200301/29 X-Sequence-Number: 1035 At 04:54 PM 1/21/2003, Loek Jehee wrote: >Dear all, > >I administer a Buddhist mailing list of 1100 subscribers. Never had >any problems so far, running a Majordomo script on my ISP. Only >recently I get lots of messages from AOL subscribers (and also some >Compuserve ones) that they don't receive the list messages anymore. > >I followed the thread on this list-managers platform and am curious >to hear any recent advice on this. >I now decided to forward the instructions on putting the list's Email >address in the "People I Know" address section. Any other suggestions >welcome! Once AOL starts blocking a list, it's very hard to get them to unblock it. See: http://www.mailinglists.org/aol/ ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jan 23 12:44:59 2003 Received: from smtpzilla1.xs4all.nl (smtpzilla1.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.137]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73DBE196141 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:44:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from [24.132.50.105] (node13269.a2000.nl [24.132.50.105]) by smtpzilla1.xs4all.nl (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id h0NKit43046935 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:44:55 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: loekjehe@pop.xs4all.nl Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030121175402.00bb44c0@pop.earthlink.net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030121175402.00bb44c0@pop.earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:44:47 +0100 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Loek Jehee Subject: Re: AOL blocks mailing list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Archive-Number: 200301/30 X-Sequence-Number: 1036 Thank you everybody for your support and your information. Here follows an update on my actions to try to get my mailing list unblocked by AOL. I have sent a large message to the postmasters of AOL and Compuserve (it seems that these two somehow are linked) explaining the nature of my mailing list etc (see the message below). Furthermore, I decided to inform the AOL subscribers individually from another Email address which is not hosted on the same server as the mailing list. Indeed it seems that the subscribers didn't receive any of my prior messages to them, so indeed I am banned. It is good to know that I can reach them now using my other Email account. I am getting really paranoia now, so I sent each of the 59 subsribers a separate mail (I didn't want to Bcc them) and I sent each mail with an interval of one minute, just to avoid any possibility that they might think this is "yet another of my spams".... I received confirmation from some subscribers that indeed they didn't receive my earlier messages and they now wrote Emails of complaint to the postmaster urging AOL to "whitelist" my mailing list and threatening them to quit their account. This might help. Let's wait and see. I didn't get any reply from AOL on my message so far. I am very much afraid that the recent Klesh type viruses could soon create a situation in which all mailing lists will be banned from large mail servers because we - as their administrators - (and the Email address of the list itself) will definitely exist in thousands of address books so the chance that our address will be abused by a virus on an affected computer is extremely high. This might become the end of the phenomenon "mailing list". Loek ----- >To: domains@aol.net, postmaster@aol.net, postmaster@aol.com, postmaster@cs.com >From: Loek Jehee >Subject: Please unblock Norbunet mailing list >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > >Dear Postmasters and administrators, > >I sincerely request you hereby to "whitelist" Email coming from >Norbunet@xs4all.nl or from my abovementioned Email address >loekjehe@xs4all.nl. Recently I received many complaints that AOL >subscribers and some Compuserve subscribers are not able to >receive Email coming from my Email address or from Norbunet >anymore. > >I am the administrator of an international Buddhist mailing list, >called "Norbunet", that since over five years has been distributing >Buddhist content to over 1100 subscribers which all are practitioners >of Tibetan Buddhism. This mailing list is a source of daily >inspiration and information to the subscribers. For some subscribers >that live in remote areas it is often their only source of >information on Buddhist events. > >Norbunet is a free and strictly moderated mailing list. It is a >closed list intended for Buddhist practitioners of the Dzogchen >lineage of Tibetan Buddhism only, or to those who are seriously >interested in this and subscription is possible with my manual approval >only. The list only forwards messages in plain ascii text format, and >it is not possible to forward binary attachments to the list. > >Recently on the Internet there are more and more problems caused by >abuse, like spam and viruses. Especially the recent Klesh worm is >very troubling for mailing list administrators like myself, since my >Email address will be in many address books of affected computers of >subscribers. Hence there is a great chance that Email containing a >virus is distributed which contains (parts of) the name of my Email >address. You will understand that these messages in fact have nothing >to do with me nor with the mailing list that I administer. > >All this will be very familiar to you and it is a very troubling >development. > >It seems that you have blocked Email coming from Norbunet and/or my >Email address. Please unblock this and whitelist these addresses. >Thank you. I will inform the subscribers on any developments and >I respectfully await your response. > >Kind regards, > >Loek Jehee >- Norbunet administrator - > >Email: loekjehe@xs4all.nl > From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jan 23 15:04:36 2003 Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AF191959FA for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:04:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from h-66-167-131-148.phndaz91.covad.net ([66.167.131.148] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18boSf-0001mI-00; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:00:34 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030123135652.00b7cea8@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:00:30 -0700 To: Loek Jehee , list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Bob Bish Subject: Re: AOL blocks mailing list In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030121175402.00bb44c0@pop.earthlink.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030121175402.00bb44c0@pop.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200301/31 X-Sequence-Number: 1037 At 01:44 PM 1/23/2003, Loek Jehee wrote: > they now wrote >Emails of complaint to the postmaster urging AOL to >"whitelist" my mailing list and threatening them to quit their >account. This might help. Let's wait and see. I didn't get >any reply from AOL on my message so far. Good luck! AOL is a nasty, ugly monster which hates mailing lists! I had to move my lists to a new host because of their blocking of the mailinglists.org domain. >I am very much afraid that the recent Klesh type viruses >could soon create a situation in which all mailing lists will be >banned from large mail servers because we - as their >administrators - (and the Email address of the list itself) >will definitely exist in thousands of address books so the >chance that our address will be abused by a virus on an >affected computer is extremely high. It's easy to keep viruses from going out over a list by setting a maxlength of a sufficiently small size to reject virus attachments (I have it set to 20K which has been enough) and to have restricted posting (the vast majority of viruses will come "from" an address which is not on your list because "From" fields are forged by the virus). ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jan 23 23:22:34 2003 Received: from parrot.squawk.com (parrot.squawk.com [64.244.111.110]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EE72196648 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 23:22:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from toshiba.scifi.squawk.com (toshiba.squawk.com [199.74.151.118]) by parrot.squawk.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF06C25B11C; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 02:22:21 -0500 (EST) X-America-Has-Resolve: yes X-Message-Flag: Microsoft Outlook is insecure. Upgrade your Mail Program Now! Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030124003823.28d9fcf0@199.74.151.1> X-Sender: njs@199.74.151.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 01:49:49 -0500 To: Loek Jehee , list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: AOL blocks mailing list In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030121175402.00bb44c0@pop.earthlink.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030121175402.00bb44c0@pop.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-1B277FB7; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archive-Number: 200301/32 X-Sequence-Number: 1038 At 09:44 PM 2003-01-23 +0100, Loek Jehee wrote: I sent private mail earlier discussing the perception of problems with xs4all.nl. As part of this answer, I checked the address against a number of blacklist sources. The answer is, xs4all.nl (and specifically the address the mail I am replying to) is listed in several RBL style blacklists. postfixgate.com, ztl.dorklist.org, maildeflector, others. These are not widely used, but there are some commercial spam blockers that build their own lists based on some set of lists. One that I found puts you on based on spamtrap spam, but won't let you off as long as you are on any lists. Who knows what AOL does? http://apps.declude.com/tools/ip4r.ch?ip=194.109.127.137 http://moensted.dk/spam/?addr=194.109.127.137&Submit=Submit Now, if this is the case, and if AOL has decided to list xs4all, well, it is going to be tougher to get your e-mail through. You might consider simply moving your list to a list provider who is getting mail through to AOL. My point is that I doubt it is your list, I suspect it is your provider. If they are mixing their mailing list output with mail sent by general users, well, every ISP gets spammers, every ISP will get listed in some mailing list from time to time. >I received confirmation from some subscribers that indeed they >didn't receive my earlier messages and they now wrote >Emails of complaint to the postmaster urging AOL to >"whitelist" my mailing list and threatening them to quit their >account. This might help. Let's wait and see. I didn't get >any reply from AOL on my message so far. It may be a mailing list issue but I doubt it --- if no one on AOL is getting any of your e-mail, it may simply be that AOL has decided to block all of your e-mail - (when I say "your" I mean they may be blocking all e-mail from your server). The real reason to boycott AOL is that they silently dump this sort of stuff rather than bouncing it so that no one can tell what is going on. I've heard all sorts of tales about why AOL sucks down mail instead of bouncing it, but when they decide a server is rogue, they could border-block it rather than taking the mail, then the bounces would not be coming from them. And it would lower load on their servers. But that would take thought on their part, and some compassion for their users and the rest of the world. Why should AOL bother? They are the biggest...and the reality seems to be that users want them to block spam. They are probably willing to take some false positives. I am not one of the people who believe that all mail should be delivered or filtered at the end user's specific setup -- for one thing, I do not think that AOL users want that level of control. What they want to do is to have the problem go away. But I do believe that they should bounce the mail. And, yes, I understand that they might end up doing a denial of service on someone. That would be alleviated by simply border-bouncing more of the spam. This seems to be a case where all mail from some server is going to be silently pitched. Border bouncing it would take care oif that. >I am very much afraid that the recent Klesh type viruses >could soon create a situation in which all mailing lists will be >banned from large mail servers because we - as their >administrators - (and the Email address of the list itself) >will definitely exist in thousands of address books so the >chance that our address will be abused by a virus on an >affected computer is extremely high. It is usually quite simple to determine that this is a klez rather than an attack from an individual because of the server-sender mismatch. Klez amounts to another denial of service attack, but I do not think it is of the same magnitude as spam. It is also true that the entire class of mailer which is currently being attacked will eventually become obsolete. The next generation of mailers may simply not have these sorts of holes. One can hope that the designers will learn something from this massive debacle. >This might become the end of the phenomenon "mailing list". I think that there are a number of things that might help along the end of the mailing list, but I do not think that Klez or other worms using that attack, and there are more than a handful now, are one of them - lots of people running mailing list software simply do not allow attachments, or only allow limited types that can't do the sorts of damage that the virii can. The most likely outcome for the masses is permission based whitelist-only e-mail systems. Mailing lists can survive in that environment, but people will have to open up specific senders or domains for mailing list origins. e-mail might eventually die, perhaps to be replaced with something with stronger authentication, but I doubt it. -- SPAM: Trademark for spiced, chopped ham manufactured by Hormel. spam: Unsolicited, Bulk E-mail, where e-mail can be interpreted generally to mean electronic messages designed to be read by an individual, and it can include Usenet, SMS, AIM, etc. But if it is not all three of Unsolicited, Bulk, and E-mail, it simply is not spam. Misusing the term plays into the hands of the spammers, since it causes confusion, and spammers thrive on confusion. If you were not confused, would you patronize a spammer? Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com - http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html Stop by and light up the world! From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Jan 26 10:20:45 2003 Received: from pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net (pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.122]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDA38195A6A; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 10:20:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from h-66-167-129-62.phndaz91.covad.net ([66.167.129.62] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18crOb-0000rL-00; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 10:20:41 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030126111909.00b70a98@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 11:20:41 -0700 To: Majordomo-Users@GreatCircle.COM, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Bob Bish Subject: TLS handshake error Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200301/33 X-Sequence-Number: 1039 I've been getting a whole bunch of addresses bouncing with the reason given as: (reason: 403 4.7.0 TLS handshake failed.) I think something is misconfigured somewhere. Would anyone know what needs to be fixed to resolve this? ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Jan 26 11:07:11 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 616A81961B6; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 11:07:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h0QJ7DSE003932; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 11:07:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 11:07:47 -0800 Subject: Re: TLS handshake error Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Majordomo-Users@greatcircle.com, list-managers@greatcircle.com To: Bob Bish From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030126111909.00b70a98@pop.earthlink.net> Message-Id: <74D1E1DF-3161-11D7-861A-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200301/34 X-Sequence-Number: 1040 On Sunday, January 26, 2003, at 10:20 AM, Bob Bish wrote: > TLS handshake failed are you working with SSL? that's a failure of the encryption startup. If you aren't, someone else is in one of the transfer points, and it's failing. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 27 10:11:43 2003 Received: from smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl (smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.139]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CF23195A10 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 10:11:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from [24.132.50.105] (node13269.a2000.nl [24.132.50.105]) by smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id h0RIBYF7057575 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 19:11:37 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: loekjehe@pop.xs4all.nl Message-Id: Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 19:11:27 +0100 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Loek Jehee Subject: Check out AOL Users Missing Email?? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Archive-Number: 200301/35 X-Sequence-Number: 1041 Dear all, Thank you all for your help. Everything I tried is without success, my Buddhist mailing list is and stays blocked by AOL. Below you find an excellent mail from another of their victims that is and stays blocked. It is sent to me from one of my AOL subscribers. I definitely think we must find a way to sue AOL on this. It is totally unacceptable what they do. Please read below. AOL is keeping Email from their customers. This is against the law! Maybe we should get into legal action. Any lawyers on this list? Ciao! Loek READ THIS: Click here: AOL Users Missing Email?? From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 27 10:25:41 2003 Received: from host3.ctc.net (host3.mail.vnet.net [166.82.1.68]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BD05195A36 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 10:25:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net ([166.82.1.7]) by host3.ctc.net (InterMail vK.4.03.05.03 201-232-132-103 license 2d687b22c655f23831a2faa19b737467) with ESMTP id <20030127182627.QNNI9899.host3@katie.vnet.net>; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:26:27 -0500 Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0RIPXZ28777; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:25:33 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:25:33 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: Loek Jehee Cc: Subject: Re: Check out AOL Users Missing Email?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200301/36 X-Sequence-Number: 1042 On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Loek Jehee wrote: > I definitely think we must find a way to sue AOL on this. It > is totally unacceptable what they do. > > Please read below. > > AOL is keeping Email from their customers. This is against > the law! Maybe we should get into legal action. Any lawyers > on this list? AOL blocking email from mailing lists is against what law? I could see AOL customers suing for over lousy service. As far as I know, service providers have no general legal obligation to accept email from the Internet. There may be a few exceptions regarding court cases with specific providers and email senders. - murr - From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 27 10:38:20 2003 Received: from mail.rev.net (server02.rev.net [206.67.68.98]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A08D195A61 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 10:38:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from admin3 (natpool2.rev.net [63.148.93.2] (may be forged)) (authenticated) by mail.rev.net (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h0RIcEM23712 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:38:15 -0500 From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:38:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Check out AOL Users Missing Email?? Reply-To: bernie@fantasyfarm.com Message-ID: <3E353648.4708.DD7366@localhost> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.02) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.3.1(snapshot 20020108) (server02.rev.net) X-Archived: msg.1043692695.lD126i@server02.rev.net X-Archive-Number: 200301/37 X-Sequence-Number: 1043 On 27 Jan 2003 at 19:11, Loek Jehee wrote: > Below you find an excellent mail from another of their victims that > is and stays blocked. It is sent to me from one of my AOL subscribers. Turns out that we're suffering from a similar problem [although we're not blackklisted with AOL we are on one or another RBLs] --- Apparently some time in the past QWest delegated our Class-C to someone who seems to have run afoul of some spam-vigilante [at this point, there's no way even to figure out which previous owner of the IP block caused the problem, nor whether there was any merit to the now long-out-of-date action]. The person at docsplace.org was lucky: we still have had no luck [after three weeks now] even getting a reply from the RBL folk, much less make any progress on getting things fixed up. This has nothing to do with AOL's policies, of course, but it is one of the problems with handling spamming by arbitrarily blocking IP subnets [not to mention that that action is a violation of protocl [cf RFC 2821/4.5.1]] > AOL is keeping Email from their customers. This is against the law! Could you elaborate? *what* law is it a violation of? The very best hope I think you'd have is some kind of breach of contract action, but I suspect that if you carefully read the ISP's ToS you'll find plenty of weasel words that'll make that a tough row to hoe. For example, one particularly aggressive throw- the-mail-amail-because-we-think-it's-spam ISP has this in their ToS: [ISP] makes no warranties of any kind, whether expressed or implied, for the service it is providing. [ISP] disclaims any warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. [ISP] will not be responsible for any damage you suffer from use of its service including, but not limited to, loss of data, delays, misdeliveries or service interruptions caused by [ISP]'s negligence or your own errors or omissions. So you can't say you weren't warned...:o) /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 27 10:54:00 2003 Received: from shedevil.annepmitchell.com (adsl-64-165-36-235.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [64.165.36.235]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BAE5195A61 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 10:53:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from annie (windows.annepmitchell.com [192.168.0.8]) by shedevil.annepmitchell.com (8.11.6/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h0RIqai46171 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 10:52:36 -0800 (PST) X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." Organization: Habeas - the email you want To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 10:53:45 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Introduction Message-ID: <3E350FB9.30867.71B76F3@localhost> References: In-reply-to: <3E353648.4708.DD7366@localhost> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) X-Archive-Number: 200301/38 X-Sequence-Number: 1044 Hi All, I searched all over the site for the list's 'standards' regarding introduction, and such, but can't find one. So, I just wanted to let you all know that I have joined the list. I'll try hard to sit on my hands and lurk until I get a sense of the list, but those of you who know me know that hand-sitting is not one of my long suits. :-) Anne From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 27 10:54:44 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39A131961A2 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 10:54:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=dingo.home.kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18dEOy-0004Xp-00 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 10:54:36 -0800 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18dEOx-0004Xg-00; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 10:54:35 -0800 To: Loek Jehee Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Check out AOL Users Missing Email?? In-Reply-To: Message from Loek Jehee of "Mon, 27 Jan 2003 19:11:27 +0100." References: X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 10:54:35 -0800 Message-ID: <17463.1043693675@kanga.nu> X-Envelope-To: loekjehe@xs4all.nl, list-managers@greatcircle.com From: J C Lawrence X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.62 X-TMDA-Fingerprint: ictTy9ub4+DLTkKpU19h46Hw+LY X-Archive-Number: 200301/39 X-Sequence-Number: 1045 On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 19:11:27 +0100 Loek Jehee wrote: > AOL is keeping Email from their customers. This is against the law! Bollocks. AOL has no particular legal requirement to deliver email to anyone, and does so to any extent, only because they wish to. Email is not paper mail and so is not subject to the normal legalities that relate to interfering with or impeding the delivery of mail. Look at your ToS and service agreement. > Maybe we should get into legal action. Any lawyers on this list? No need to. There's no offense. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 27 11:18:31 2003 Received: from shedevil.annepmitchell.com (adsl-64-165-36-235.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [64.165.36.235]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E56E0195A3E for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:18:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from annie (windows.annepmitchell.com [192.168.0.8]) by shedevil.annepmitchell.com (8.11.6/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h0RJH7i46659 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:17:07 -0800 (PST) X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." Organization: Habeas - the email you want To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:18:14 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Check out AOL Users Missing Email?? Message-ID: <3E351576.32465.7316951@localhost> References: Message from Loek Jehee "of Mon, 27 Jan 2003 19:11:27 +0100." In-reply-to: <17463.1043693675@kanga.nu> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) X-Archive-Number: 200301/40 X-Sequence-Number: 1046 > Bollocks. AOL has no particular legal requirement to deliver email to > anyone, and does so to any extent, only because they wish to. Email > is not paper mail and so is not subject to the normal legalities that > relate to interfering with or impeding the delivery of mail. > > Look at your ToS and service agreement. > > > Maybe we should get into legal action. Any lawyers on this list? I'm a lawyer (but please don't hold it against me), and JC is right. At least, from the *sender's* perspective. AOL is under no obligation to the *sender* to deliver their email. If there is a cause of action at all, it would lay with the AOL users - the intended recipients - they may have a cause based on AOL's failure to transit and deliver email which they requested. That would depend in large part on whether AOL has anywhere stated that user services include delivery of email, but there *could* be an "industry standard/expectation" tort in there, as well. Anne (So much for sitting on my hands, eh?) From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 27 11:24:20 2003 Received: from albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net (albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A67C2195A61 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:24:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from 24-205-154-98.riv-eres.charterpipeline.net ([24.205.154.98] helo=lehel.goldmark.private) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18dEri-0001Aq-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:24:18 -0800 Received: from betty.goldmark.private ([192.168.1.51]) by lehel.goldmark.private with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 18dEri-0004QF-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:24:18 -0800 Received: from jeffrey (helo=localhost) by betty.goldmark.private with local-esmtp (Exim 4.10) id H9E0KI-0004WF-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:24:18 -0800 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:24:18 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey Goldberg X-X-Sender: jeffrey@betty.goldmark.private Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg To: List Managers Mailing list Subject: Re: Check out AOL Users Missing Email?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200301/41 X-Sequence-Number: 1047 On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Loek Jehee wrote: > AOL is keeping Email from their customers. This is against the law! No, it's not against the law. Much of their policy and practice may be stupid, but if I had a cent for every spammer who has said what you said about blocking being against the law, well ... -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice Hate spam? Boycott MCI! http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/anti-spam/mci/ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 27 11:43:15 2003 Received: from minneapolis.mnjazz.com (circles.radparker.com [209.98.250.78]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8A13195A67 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:43:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mnjazz.com (unknown [63.78.137.249]) by minneapolis.mnjazz.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5AC4102C6 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:46:33 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3E358BD1.91ED4062@mnjazz.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:43:13 -0600 From: Al Iverson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Check out AOL Users Missing Email?? References: <3E353648.4708.DD7366@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200301/42 X-Sequence-Number: 1048 Bernie Cosell wrote: > > On 27 Jan 2003 at 19:11, Loek Jehee wrote: > > > Below you find an excellent mail from another of their victims that > > is and stays blocked. It is sent to me from one of my AOL subscribers. > > Turns out that we're suffering from a similar problem [although we're not > blackklisted with AOL we are on one or another RBLs] --- Apparently some time > in the past QWest delegated our Class-C to someone who seems to have run afoul > of some spam-vigilante [at this point, there's no way even to figure out which > previous owner of the IP block caused the problem, nor whether there was any > merit to the now long-out-of-date action]. > > The person at docsplace.org was lucky: we still have had no luck [after three > weeks now] even getting a reply from the RBL folk, much less make any progress > on getting things fixed up. This has nothing to do with AOL's policies, of > course, but it is one of the problems with handling spamming by arbitrarily > blocking IP subnets [not to mention that that action is a violation of protocl > [cf RFC 2821/4.5.1]] My experience with AOL and mailblocking has been positive; whenever there was an issue with our mail being delivered to AOL users resolving it was fairly easy. I imagine that one could get caught in the middle if your list mail is being silently eaten but the mailserver it is sent from isn't under your control. In that situation, time to get whoever's in charge of that server to call AOL's NIC contact phone number. Regards, Al Iverson PS - Hi. :-) -- Al Iverson -- iverson@mnjazz.com -- Minneapolis, Minnesota My pockets hurt. http://www.spamresource.com/ Support Jazz in Minnesota! -- http://www.mnjazz.com/ All opinions are mine alone unless I state otherwise. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 27 12:09:49 2003 Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.232]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21D46195AAF for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:09:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from h-66-167-129-62.phndaz91.covad.net ([66.167.129.62] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18dFZe-00026A-00 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:09:42 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030127130128.00b81738@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:09:39 -0700 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Bob Bish Subject: Re: Check out AOL Users Missing Email?? In-Reply-To: <3E351576.32465.7316951@localhost> References: <17463.1043693675@kanga.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200301/43 X-Sequence-Number: 1049 AOL has a program which detects volumes of mail coming into AOL from any single source, assumes it is spam, black-holes it (deletes it so it is not delivered, bounced or retrieveable) and blacklists the sender's IP address. They could not care less whether or not it actually IS spam. This could happen to any mailing list at any time. This has been going on for years and they have never made any kind of exception for mailing lists. To get un-blacklisted, their legal dept. wants one to sign one's life away. See: http://www.mailinglists.org/aol/ which contains the actual document from AOL's legal staff. Read it. It is absurd. Just one example: 15. AOL reserves the right to discontinue delivery of mail from an internet sender for any reason or no reason whatsoever. ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 27 12:14:09 2003 Received: from albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net (albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56955195A43 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:14:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from h-66-167-129-62.phndaz91.covad.net ([66.167.129.62] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18dFdv-0004gq-00 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:14:07 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030127131244.00b82c20@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:14:07 -0700 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Bob Bish Subject: Re: Check out AOL Users Missing Email?? In-Reply-To: <3E358BD1.91ED4062@mnjazz.com> References: <3E353648.4708.DD7366@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200301/44 X-Sequence-Number: 1050 >My experience with AOL and mailblocking has been positive; whenever >there was an issue with our mail being delivered to AOL users resolving >it was fairly easy. I imagine that one could get caught in the middle if >your list mail is being silently eaten but the mailserver it is sent >from isn't under your control. In that situation, time to get whoever's >in charge of that server to call AOL's NIC contact phone number. Did you sign that document (the one to which I referred in my previous e-mail on this subject)? ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 27 12:30:11 2003 Received: from minneapolis.mnjazz.com (circles.radparker.com [209.98.250.78]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22BC9195A3D for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:28:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mnjazz.com (unknown [63.78.137.249]) by minneapolis.mnjazz.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1109A102CB for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 14:32:00 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3E359678.FFF7E673@mnjazz.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 14:28:40 -0600 From: Al Iverson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Check out AOL Users Missing Email?? References: <3E353648.4708.DD7366@localhost> <5.2.0.9.2.20030127131244.00b82c20@pop.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200301/45 X-Sequence-Number: 1051 Bob Bish wrote: > > >My experience with AOL and mailblocking has been positive; whenever > >there was an issue with our mail being delivered to AOL users resolving > >it was fairly easy. I imagine that one could get caught in the middle if > >your list mail is being silently eaten but the mailserver it is sent > >from isn't under your control. In that situation, time to get whoever's > >in charge of that server to call AOL's NIC contact phone number. > > Did you sign that document (the one to which I referred in my previous > e-mail on this subject)? Looking at the example available on the web URL you posted, it would seem that the last point would preclude somebody from confirming that they had done so. Having worked both the sender and recipient side of mailing lists, list management issues, spamblocking, and etc., I respect AOL's "our server, our rules" attitude towards mail inbound to AOL, and that I would recommend to my employer that they do the same. Regards, Al Iverson -- Al Iverson -- iverson@mnjazz.com -- Minneapolis, Minnesota My pockets hurt. http://www.spamresource.com/ Support Jazz in Minnesota! -- http://www.mnjazz.com/ All opinions are mine alone unless I state otherwise. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 27 12:42:17 2003 Received: from mail.rev.net (server02.rev.net [206.67.68.98]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B7BF195A3D for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:42:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from admin3 (natpool2.rev.net [63.148.93.2] (may be forged)) (authenticated) by mail.rev.net (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h0RKgFM27718 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:42:15 -0500 From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:42:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Check out AOL Users Missing Email?? Reply-To: bernie@fantasyfarm.com Message-ID: <3E355358.24230.14EFA98@localhost> In-reply-to: <3E359678.FFF7E673@mnjazz.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.02a) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.3.1(snapshot 20020108) (server02.rev.net) X-Archived: msg.1043700135.0hSKT1@server02.rev.net X-Archive-Number: 200301/46 X-Sequence-Number: 1052 On 27 Jan 2003 at 14:28, Al Iverson wrote: > Having worked both the sender and recipient side of mailing lists, list > management issues, spamblocking, and etc., I respect AOL's "our server, > our rules" attitude towards mail inbound to AOL, and that I would > recommend to my employer that they do the same. And so the Internet schisms into 100,000 incompatible fiefdoms, all with different [conflicting] rules and requirements and procedures. One requires the removal info in the header, another requires it in the footer, another requires the "List-*" headers another forbids it, one blocks all messages that are "Precedence: bulk" another requires that all mailing lists use "Precedence: bulk", and so it goes... sigh... What a wonderful world it will be.... /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 27 12:45:00 2003 Received: from shedevil.annepmitchell.com (adsl-64-165-36-235.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [64.165.36.235]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71A2C195A77 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:44:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from annie (windows.annepmitchell.com [192.168.0.8]) by shedevil.annepmitchell.com (8.11.6/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h0RKhai48359 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:43:36 -0800 (PST) X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." Organization: Habeas - the email you want To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:44:55 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Check out AOL Users Missing Email?? Message-ID: <3E3529C7.18432.77F383B@localhost> References: <3E358BD1.91ED4062@mnjazz.com> In-reply-to: <5.2.0.9.2.20030127131244.00b82c20@pop.earthlink.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) X-Archive-Number: 200301/47 X-Sequence-Number: 1053 > > >My experience with AOL and mailblocking has been positive; whenever > >there was an issue with our mail being delivered to AOL users > >resolving it was fairly easy. I imagine that one could get caught in > >the middle if your list mail is being silently eaten but the > >mailserver it is sent from isn't under your control. In that > >situation, time to get whoever's in charge of that server to call > >AOL's NIC contact phone number. > > Did you sign that document (the one to which I referred in my > previous > e-mail on this subject)? We have a whitelisting agreement with AOL for all of our users (licensees), and we found them to be very easy to work with and we did not have to sign our life away. Of course, we are able to prove that all lists coming through our users are confirmed opt-in, so if they block them they will be positively blocking email which their users have definitely requested. They seem to understand that. :-) Anne From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 27 12:58:05 2003 Received: from lists.apple.com (lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9528B195AB9 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:58:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (A17-216-21-175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by lists.apple.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0RKuTJ16200; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:56:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:56:35 -0800 Subject: Re: Check out AOL Users Missing Email?? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com To: bernie@fantasyfarm.com From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <3E355358.24230.14EFA98@localhost> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200301/48 X-Sequence-Number: 1054 On Monday, January 27, 2003, at 12:42 PM, Bernie Cosell wrote: > And so the Internet schisms into 100,000 incompatible fiefdoms, all > with > different [conflicting] rules and requirements and procedures. it already has, bernie. > One requires > the removal info in the header, another requires it in the footer, > another > requires the "List-*" headers another forbids it, one blocks all > messages that > are "Precedence: bulk" another requires that all mailing lists use > "Precedence: > bulk", and so it goes... sigh... What a wonderful world it will be.... > Already is. But you forget one thing. If you're too small to bother with, you can set requirements like that, and everyone will ignore you and you'll find yourself on the out and ignored... What some of these fiefdoms don't seem to understand is they're not worth the bother trying to cooperate with or convince... But if you're big enough, you can make others say "how high". -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ Someday, we'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 27 13:20:55 2003 Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27E9F195F12 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:20:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from h-66-167-129-62.phndaz91.covad.net ([66.167.129.62] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18dGgT-0006Zr-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:20:49 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030127142018.00b889a8@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 14:20:49 -0700 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Bob Bish Subject: Re: Check out AOL Users Missing Email?? In-Reply-To: <3E3529C7.18432.77F383B@localhost> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030127131244.00b82c20@pop.earthlink.net> <3E358BD1.91ED4062@mnjazz.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200301/49 X-Sequence-Number: 1055 At 01:44 PM 1/27/2003, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote: > > > > >My experience with AOL and mailblocking has been positive; whenever > > >there was an issue with our mail being delivered to AOL users > > >resolving it was fairly easy. I imagine that one could get caught in > > >the middle if your list mail is being silently eaten but the > > >mailserver it is sent from isn't under your control. In that > > >situation, time to get whoever's in charge of that server to call > > >AOL's NIC contact phone number. > > > > Did you sign that document (the one to which I referred in my > > previous > > e-mail on this subject)? > >We have a whitelisting agreement with AOL for all of our users >(licensees), and we found them to be very easy to work with and we >did not have to sign our life away. Of course, we are able to prove >that all lists coming through our users are confirmed opt-in, so if >they block them they will be positively blocking email which their >users have definitely requested. They seem to understand that. :-) > >Anne Amazing! I have forwarded these comments to the guy who runs mailinglists.org. ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 27 13:49:40 2003 Received: from falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net (falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.74]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B8D195A31 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:49:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from h-66-167-129-62.phndaz91.covad.net ([66.167.129.62] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18dH8A-0002oL-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:49:27 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030127144854.00b618d8@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 14:49:26 -0700 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Bob Bish Subject: Re: Check out AOL Users Missing Email?? In-Reply-To: <3E3537FD.14834.7B60C94@localhost> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030127142018.00b889a8@pop.earthlink.net> <3E3529C7.18432.77F383B@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200301/50 X-Sequence-Number: 1056 At 02:45 PM 1/27/2003, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote: > > Amazing! I have forwarded these comments to the guy who runs > > mailinglists.org. > >What's amazing? Why? That AOL would be anything like cooperative or understanding. ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 27 14:46:58 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27B27195A31 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 14:46:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=dingo.home.kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18dI1m-0005uX-00 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 14:46:54 -0800 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18dI1l-0005uO-00; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 14:46:53 -0800 To: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Check out AOL Users Missing Email?? In-Reply-To: Message from "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." of "Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:18:14 PST." <3E351576.32465.7316951@localhost> References: Message from Loek Jehee "of Mon, 27 Jan 2003 19:11:27 +0100." <3E351576.32465.7316951@localhost> 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, 27 Jan 2003 14:46:53 -0800 Message-ID: <22715.1043707613@kanga.nu> X-Envelope-To: amitchell@habeas.com, list-managers@greatcircle.com From: J C Lawrence X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.62 X-TMDA-Fingerprint: VEwtrl177xz6mbH1zmJUSCMAQso X-Archive-Number: 200301/51 X-Sequence-Number: 1057 On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:18:14 -0800 Anne P Mitchell wrote: > I'm a lawyer (but please don't hold it against me)... Awwwww, shucks! > ... and JC is right. I knew there had to be a first time. > At least, from the *sender's* perspective. AOL is under no obligation > to the *sender* to deliver their email. > If there is a cause of action at all, it would lay with the AOL users > - the intended recipients - they may have a cause based on AOL's > failure to transit and deliver email which they requested. That would > depend in large part on whether AOL has anywhere stated that user > services include delivery of email, but there *could* be an "industry > standard/expectation" tort in there, as well. I suspect its worse than that. IANAL but my understanding is that questions of intent and negligence would have the be established, which I suspect are in themselves insurmountable hurdles. SMTP is not a reliable transport, computers are not inherently reliable, and IIRC AOL already clearly states that they do their own SPAM/etc suppression as part of their service agreement etc etc yada yada. Ergo, even if it can be demonstrated from the sender's logs of a successful delivery of a message to an AOL-owned system (which is difficult enough to within the rules of evidence and proof), AOL can claim @ -- AOL can claim a trifling rate of regrettable flase positives in their spam suppression algorithms, and then show graphs for the hundreds of millions of SPAM messages it does match. -- That, yes, like "all computer systems" AOL's do have errors and do Bad Things now and then, however on a percentage scale its a miniscule problem that needs long strings of decimal points to express. -- AOL runs the largest single 'net connected system on the planet. To make and meet QoS requirements tradeoffs are made. They aggressively monitor and correct errors in their system, however the system is huge and complex and of course the staff is overworked but of course they fix these annoying errors in all good will and earnestness as soon as they can without breaking the rest of the system. -- etc. Seems way too weak to me, especially given current political climes. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 27 14:56:59 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C23AE195A20 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 14:56:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=dingo.home.kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18dIBU-0005z3-00 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 14:56:56 -0800 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18dIBT-0005yu-00; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 14:56:55 -0800 To: Bob Bish Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Check out AOL Users Missing Email?? In-Reply-To: Message from Bob Bish of "Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:09:39 MST." <5.2.0.9.2.20030127130128.00b81738@pop.earthlink.net> References: <17463.1043693675@kanga.nu> <5.2.0.9.2.20030127130128.00b81738@pop.earthlink.net> 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, 27 Jan 2003 14:56:55 -0800 Message-ID: <22995.1043708215@kanga.nu> X-Envelope-To: bobbish@earthlink.net, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: J C Lawrence X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.62 X-TMDA-Fingerprint: ZJUSdtjNGo+D0VYp5XZ/WFmfvhs X-Archive-Number: 200301/52 X-Sequence-Number: 1058 On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:09:39 -0700 Bob Bish wrote: > To get un-blacklisted, their legal dept. wants one to sign one's life > away. See: > http://www.mailinglists.org/aol/ > which contains the actual document from AOL's legal staff. Read it. > It is absurd. I'll comment merely that the only item there I find validly objectionable is #13. All mail from Mailinglists.org must have a valid non-internet (a phone number, a snail mail address, etc.) contact in the text of every message. Which is not surprising given the corporate marketing mail I expect they are geared towards. All the rest, encluding the bits about monitoring, are both standard practice and expectable. Heck, its like the Squid logs at most corporates. Typically company policy is that those logs are private, will not be examined, and will not reviewed, reported etc. However, we all know full well that at the very first instant there's an suspicion of just cause that those very logs will be hauled on deck and used... You sent a byte into my network? Fine. What I do with it from there is up to me, encluding silent discard, public rebroadcast, or insertion into my bork filter. cf the MAPS and the Above.net routing debate. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 27 15:48:45 2003 Received: from gopostal.onlinepolicy.net (gopostal.onlinepolicy.net [209.237.225.72]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CE0C195ABA for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:48:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from APTITUDE ([216.240.38.250]) by gopostal.onlinepolicy.net (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h0RNRev30676; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:27:40 -0800 From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: "'Bob Bish'" , Subject: Re: Check out AOL Users Missing Email?? Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:47:35 -0800 Message-ID: <7AD6B1A7CA734A48B95E96591302A9B905E513@sfdc.us.sychron.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030127142018.00b889a8@pop.earthlink.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal X-Archive-Number: 200301/53 X-Sequence-Number: 1059 Our experience with QueerNet and Online Policy Group matches Anne's exactly. > -----Original Message----- > From: list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com > [mailto:list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com] On Behalf Of Bob Bish > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 1:21 PM > To: list-managers@greatcircle.com > Subject: Re: Check out AOL Users Missing Email?? > > > At 01:44 PM 1/27/2003, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote: > > > > > > > > >My experience with AOL and mailblocking has been > positive; whenever > > > >there was an issue with our mail being delivered to AOL users > > > >resolving it was fairly easy. I imagine that one could > get caught > > > >in the middle if your list mail is being silently eaten but the > > > >mailserver it is sent from isn't under your control. In that > > > >situation, time to get whoever's in charge of that > server to call > > > >AOL's NIC contact phone number. > > > > > > Did you sign that document (the one to which I referred in my > > > previous > > > e-mail on this subject)? > > > >We have a whitelisting agreement with AOL for all of our users > >(licensees), and we found them to be very easy to work with > and we did > >not have to sign our life away. Of course, we are able to > prove that > >all lists coming through our users are confirmed opt-in, so if they > >block them they will be positively blocking email which their users > >have definitely requested. They seem to understand that. :-) > > > >Anne > > Amazing! I have forwarded these comments to the guy who runs > mailinglists.org. > > ...Bob > > From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 27 17:50:57 2003 Received: from parrot.squawk.com (parrot.squawk.com [64.244.111.110]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3655195F63 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 17:49:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from toshiba.scifi.squawk.com (toshiba.squawk.com [199.74.151.118]) by parrot.squawk.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B84025B1A9 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 20:49:12 -0500 (EST) X-America-Has-Resolve: yes X-Message-Flag: Microsoft Outlook is insecure. Upgrade your Mail Program Now! Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030127182922.25c480d8@199.74.151.1> X-Sender: njs@199.74.151.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 19:44:32 -0500 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: Check out AOL Users Missing Email?? In-Reply-To: <3E353648.4708.DD7366@localhost> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-3EFC780F; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archive-Number: 200301/54 X-Sequence-Number: 1060 At 01:38 PM 2003-01-27 -0500, Bernie Cosell wrote: >On 27 Jan 2003 at 19:11, Loek Jehee wrote: > > > Below you find an excellent mail from another of their victims that > > is and stays blocked. It is sent to me from one of my AOL subscribers. > >Turns out that we're suffering from a similar problem [although we're not >blackklisted with AOL we are on one or another RBLs] --- Apparently some time >in the past QWest delegated our Class-C to someone who seems to have run >afoul >of some spam-vigilante [at this point, there's no way even to figure out >which >previous owner of the IP block caused the problem, nor whether there was any >merit to the now long-out-of-date action]. This is pretty standard. You have been sold "damaged goods". When an ISP leases to a spammer, that address space ends up, not only on public RBLs, but on many many private blocklists. At the least, QWest should provide you new ip space and should allow you time to convert. It has gotten to the point that if a particular net has been used by spammers for a while, it has become damaged. Not all RBLs are public, and not all have public owners. Thank the spammers for that, they have sued to get their servers unlisted so that they could deliver their spam. >The person at docsplace.org was lucky: we still have had no luck [after three >weeks now] even getting a reply from the RBL folk, much less make any >progress >on getting things fixed up. This has nothing to do with AOL's policies, of >course, but it is one of the problems with handling spamming by arbitrarily >blocking IP subnets [not to mention that that action is a violation of >protocl >[cf RFC 2821/4.5.1]] I read your claim, and unless they are blocking mail to postmaster, then they are not in violation of 4.5.1. If they are, you could report them to www.rfc-ignorant.org. However, the way I read it, if they return a 554 to your connect, followed by 503's until you send a quit, then they do not have to take mail to postmaster. They are allowed to do this in response to, for example, a denial of service attack. Since many people believe that spam is a denial of service attack, it is not clear that spam does not justify blocking all mail from an IP address. I would say that spam to postmaster or abuse justifies blocking an address from sending mail to those addresses. It is also true that there are a lot of people who do what I do: Pretty much accept all mail to postmaster (so long as it has a valid or null MAIL FROM:<>) or to abuse in the same circumstance. Block mail to lots of other addresses. Simple to do with most modern mail transfer agents. > > AOL is keeping Email from their customers. This is against the law! > >Could you elaborate? *what* law is it a violation of? The very best hope I >think you'd have is some kind of breach of contract action, but I suspect >that >if you carefully read the ISP's ToS you'll find plenty of weasel words >that'll >make that a tough row to hoe. For example, one particularly aggressive throw- >the-mail-amail-because-we-think-it's-spam ISP has this in their ToS: > > [ISP] makes no warranties of any kind, whether expressed or implied, > for the service it is providing. [ISP] disclaims any warranty of > merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. [ISP] will not > be responsible for any damage you suffer from use of its service > including, but not limited to, loss of data, delays, misdeliveries or > service interruptions caused by [ISP]'s negligence or your own errors > or omissions. > >So you can't say you weren't warned...:o) Specifically, AOL makes this statement at: http://www.aol.com/info/bulkemail.html >AOL reserves the right to take all legal and technical steps available to >prevent unsolicited bulk e-mail or other unauthorized e-mail from >entering, utilizing or remaining within the AOL Network. Nothing in this >policy is intended to grant any right to transmit or send e-mail to, or >through, the AOL Network. AOL's failure to enforce this policy in every >instance in which it might have application does not amount to a waiver of >AOL's rights. You know? My guess is that most AOL users want it that way. -- SPAM: Trademark for spiced, chopped ham manufactured by Hormel. spam: Unsolicited, Bulk E-mail, where e-mail can be interpreted generally to mean electronic messages designed to be read by an individual, and it can include Usenet, SMS, AIM, etc. But if it is not all three of Unsolicited, Bulk, and E-mail, it simply is not spam. Misusing the term plays into the hands of the spammers, since it causes confusion, and spammers thrive on confusion. Spam is not speech, it is an action, like theft, or vandalism. If you were not confused, would you patronize a spammer? Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com - http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html Stop by and light up the world! From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 27 19:32:22 2003 Received: from jerusalem.christianitytoday.com (jerusalem.christianitytoday.com [12.158.13.148]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0CB519600D for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 19:32:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from IO06 ([12.24.216.130]) by christianitytoday.com ([12.158.13.148]) with SMTP (MDaemon.PRO.v6.0.7.R) for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 21:31:25 -0600 Reply-To: From: "Tatum, Richard" To: Subject: Re: Check out AOL Users Missing Email?? Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 21:31:20 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <3E3529C7.18432.77F383B@localhost> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal X-MDRemoteIP: 12.24.216.130 X-Return-Path: rich@ChristianityToday.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: list-managers@greatcircle.com X-Archive-Number: 200301/55 X-Sequence-Number: 1061 We're whitelisted with AOL and rarely have any problems getting email through, and when we do have problems it appears to be transitory. AOL's usually pretty responsive in helping us out. But, then, we have been a long-time content provider for AOL and that may have quite a bit to do with it. We're still small-fry, but they do know us. Regards, Rich -- Richard Tatum List manager for Christianity Today International email: rich@christianitytoday.com web: christianitytoday.com aol im: richtatum -Stephen L. Talbott From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jan 27 21:40:12 2003 Received: from hughes-fe01.direcway.com (hughes-fe01.direcway.com [66.82.20.91]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A43F9195AAC for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 21:40:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from pc14678 ([66.82.117.136]) by hughes-fe01.direcway.com (InterMail vK.4.04.00.00 201-232-137 license dcc4e84cb8fc01ca8f8654c982ec8526) with ESMTP id <20030128054003.SRXO17758.hughes-fe01@pc14678> for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:40:03 -0500 From: "Jim Poston" Organization: The Information Dirt Road To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 21:26:31 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Introduction Reply-To: poston@ml1.net Message-ID: <3E35A407.9543.EDFDA60@localhost> In-reply-to: <3E350FB9.30867.71B76F3@localhost> References: <3E353648.4708.DD7366@localhost> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.02) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body X-Archive-Number: 200301/56 X-Sequence-Number: 1062 On 27 Jan 2003 at 10:53, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote: > I'll try hard to sit on my hands and lurk until I get a sense of the list, > but those of you who know me know that hand-sitting is not one of my long > suits. :-) So, squash any spammers lately? ;-) Are there any actions against spammers that you can write about? I'm very curious as to whether the magic Habeas haiku will have any significant effect. -- Jim poston@ml1.net << Dear Friend, My name is Dave Rhodes. >> From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Jan 28 11:21:31 2003 Received: from shedevil.annepmitchell.com (adsl-64-165-36-235.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [64.165.36.235]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3ECD195B5C for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:21:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from annie (windows.annepmitchell.com [192.168.0.8]) by shedevil.annepmitchell.com (8.11.6/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h0SJK2i63625 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:20:02 -0800 (PST) X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." Organization: Habeas - the email you want To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:21:23 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Introduction Message-ID: <3E3667B3.29508.445CF4B@localhost> References: <3E350FB9.30867.71B76F3@localhost> In-reply-to: <3E35A407.9543.EDFDA60@localhost> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) X-Archive-Number: 200301/57 X-Sequence-Number: 1063 > So, squash any spammers lately? ;-) > > Are there any actions against spammers that you can write about? I'm > very curious as to whether the magic Habeas haiku will have any > significant effect. What I can tell you is that even the threat of an informal C&D (Cease and Desist) has caused rapid retreat - however these were instances in which it was actually the licensee's having not properly configured their system, so they had the headers attaching to things which they should not have - and so the spammer quite by serenditipy and unintenionally ended up with the headers in their mail - boy were they surprised to hear from us! However, so far no spammer has been stupid enough to actually forge our headers - perhaps those who are smart enough to figure out how to do it aren't stupid enough to actually do it. Anne