Err First Last Address --- ----- ----- ------- 2 10/18 10/19 Richard Laager <RLAAGER@WIKTEL.COM> Last error: 5.7.1 554 5.7.1 SMTP AUTH is required for rlaager@WIKTEL.COM. Contact support@wiktel.com for assistance. (p9K0IjAI005904) I have been in contact with this person before in the past. I am going to let LISTSERV do what it thinks is best - which will be to bounce the user from the list after 10 days of failures. I will not interfere or try to stop it because of a misbehaving remote mail server. (yes, I am poking at you WIKTEL.COM) -- Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau@iphouse.net The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes. - Berkeley Fortune ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 02:15 -0500, Mike Horwath wrote:
Err First Last Address --- ----- ----- ------- 2 10/18 10/19 Richard Laager <RLAAGER@WIKTEL.COM> Last error: 5.7.1 554 5.7.1 SMTP AUTH is required for rlaager@WIKTEL.COM. Contact support@wiktel.com for assistance. (p9K0IjAI005904)
I have been in contact with this person before in the past.
I believe I've fixed it. Of course, I said that last time. I'll know for sure if I get a copy of this message. If I don't, I'll look into this some more. As I mentioned off-list before: While I agree that my mail server was broken, it would not have been a problem if your listserv software wasn't munging messages. And while the From: munging isn't too bad, the Reply-To: munging is really annoying. See the following for reasons why: http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html
I am going to let LISTSERV do what it thinks is best - which will be to bounce the user from the list after 10 days of failures.
The bug in question resulted in my own messages bouncing when the listserv software tried to send them to me. I've sent 4 messages to mice-discuss in the last* 10 days, not counting this one. By my quick count, there have been about 58 messages (including mine) sent to the list in the same time. If 4 bounces, especially out of 58 messages, is enough for your software to unsubscribe me from the list, it's broken as well. Richard * Yes, I'm aware you're talking about a 10 day window that's at least partially in the future. I'm looking backwards only so that I can provide hard numbers. ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
This is LISTSERV, software that has been running since the 1980s. You are being overly draconian in your filter; this is not the fault of the mailing list software by any means. It is completely RFC and BCP compliant. If you are bouncing email you sent which is being resent from LISTSERV, then take one of two choices: Fix your filters which must cause other mailing lists because of the same issue. Go to the list site, then turn off sending of your own messages back to you. -- Mike Horwath via iPad 2, electric boogaloo! ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
On Oct 20, 2011, at 10:34 AM, Mike Horwath wrote:
You are being overly draconian in your filter; this is not the fault of the mailing list software by any means.
It is completely RFC and BCP compliant.
Actually, if you read RFC2822, it indicates: "When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent." As the link Richard sent describes, the list software is not the "author" of the message. The sender of the message should be the only one setting the Reply-To header.
Fix your filters which must cause other mailing lists because of the same issue.
Looking at a sampling of other lists that I'm subscribed to, none of them have this behavior. (including NANOG, c-nsp, j-nsp, arin-ppml, etc). -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa@gmail.com ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
TL;DR So vote, and quickly. keep Reply-To in place so that messages, by default, go back to the list for the conversations hampering easy (r)eply to author tiny (and private) conversations ignore Reply-To and let a bunch of tiny (and private) conversations occur and consider that users use a (g)roup-reply mechanism in their mail programs to keep public conversations going I'll watch what I receive and make a final decision later today or tomorrow. My diatribe: I find references to Mailman people talking about this, the URL you mentioned and a few others. (more than a few, the debate has been going on for a very long time) I am on the side of option #1 to keep conversations by default public and list-bound (ie; using the Reply-To header). I also consider the Reply-To header a perfect mechanism for getting this done as this is a *discussion* list, not an announcement list and keeping conversations within the list unless explicitly decided by the end user. More searching around this morning finds this: Mailman uses the List-Post header (described in RFC2369) in some of the mailing lists I am on but not all, and I am finding during my 90+ minutes of testing this morning that most MUAs don't honor this regardless of what the RFC says. FreeBSD mailing lists are Mailman and use the Reply-To header but not consistently across the board. All three anti-spam lists I am on use the Reply-To header and a mix of Mailman vs home-grown list software. Multiple Mailman lists I am on are using Reply-To for announcement and discussion lists. Discussion lists are running ~20% Reply-To included, the other 80% are not. Multiple LISTSERV lists I am on are using Reply-To for announcement and discussion lists. Discussion lists are running ~70% Reply-To included, the other 30% are not. BTW: RFC2822 is a proposed item and has not reached the final standard level. But that's the problem with RFCs isn't it? -- Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau@iphouse.net The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes. - Berkeley Fortune ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
participants (3)
-
Andrew Hoyos -
Mike Horwath -
Richard Laager