Re: [asterisk-users] OT: Explain where mailing list bouncing comes from ?

[James B. Byrne]

On Fri, June 16, 2017 12:28, Tim S wrote:

Whether it is intentional or not these messages railing against the
list operators has a decided tone of condescension which is not
warranted.  The fact of the matter is that DMARC is broken by design
and the unpleasant effects that adoption of it has on mailing-list
traffic were well hashed out on the ITEF mailing lists before it was
adopted anyway.  What was predicted there has come to pass.

DMARC conflicts with the existing SMTP RFCs in several ways, none of
which I will elaborate here but all of which may be discovered by
perusing the relevant threads on the ITEF mailing lists.  Some mailing
list management software, notably Mailman, since has been modified to
'work around' the problems with DMARC if so configured by the list
owners.  But only at the cost of violating the SMTP RFCs themselves.
Do not take my word for it.  Raise these issues on the Postfix mailing
list and discover what response you get from Viktor and Wietse.

The driving force behind DMARC was YAHOO's shoddy security of their
own users' accounts.  With Hotmail and similar ilk close behind. It is
a completely inappropriate, and in my opinion ill-thought-out,
technical solution to what is essentially an internal security problem
at some email providers, albeit very large ones.  In general it is an
example of what is called 'externalising your costs'.

The appropriate answer has been provided: lose the
gmail/hotmail/yahoo/freemail account and administer your own domain
for personal email. Configure the spf and dkim settings on your own
domain as required to suit your needs and not those of someone else.

-- 
***  e-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel  ***
Do NOT transmit sensitive data via e-Mail
 Do NOT open attachments nor follow links sent by e-Mail

James B. Byrnemailto:byrn...@harte-lyne.ca
Harte & Lyne Limited  http://www.harte-lyne.ca
9 Brockley Drive  vox: +1 905 561 1241
Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757
Canada  L8E 3C3


-- 
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/

New to Asterisk? Start here:
  https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Difference between Application Set and Function SET?

[Richard Mudgett]

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Jonathan H  wrote:

> OK, thanks. That sort of makes sense. Is it case sensitive?
>

Is what case sensitive?  Function names are case sensitive.  Application
names have historically been not case sensitive.


>
> Bonus quickie while I'm here (not worth own thread) - Asterisklint
> complains that:
>
> H_PAT_NON_CANONICAL: pattern '_#' is not in the canonical form '#'
>
> for the line
>
> exten => _#,1,Goto(s,1)
>
> I'm sure I read somewhere it should be _#.
>
> Am I imagining it?!
>

You are declaring an extension line with a pattern but the pattern only has
literal characters so it really isn't a pattern.  It takes more CPU to match
than the non-pattern form and is more likely an error.

Richard

[1] https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Pattern+Matching
-- 
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/

New to Asterisk? Start here:
  https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Difference between Application Set and Function SET?

[Jonathan H]

OK, thanks. That sort of makes sense. Is it case sensitive?

Bonus quickie while I'm here (not worth own thread) - Asterisklint
complains that:

H_PAT_NON_CANONICAL: pattern '_#' is not in the canonical form '#'

for the line

exten => _#,1,Goto(s,1)

I'm sure I read somewhere it should be _#.

Am I imagining it?!

On 16 June 2017 at 19:17, Richard Kenner  wrote:
>> It was only when I ran AsteriskLint over my dialplan that I noticed this:
>>
>> https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Asterisk+14+Application_Set
>> https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Asterisk+14+Function_SET
>>
>> Hmmm, they both seem to do the same thing. Or don't they?
>
> In some sense they do, but one's an application, meaning that it's
> like a subprogram in a programming-language sense, and the other is a
> function, which returns a value.
>
> --
> _
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>
> Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/
>
> New to Asterisk? Start here:
>   https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started
>
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

-- 
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/

New to Asterisk? Start here:
  https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] OT: Explain where mailing list bouncing comes from ?

[Adam Goldberg]

I believe that Digium is using Mailman already (hence the in-the-clear monthly 
password reminders).  I suggest that whoever administers the Mailman system 
should probably be able to tell why Gmail is bouncing (sometimes), and if not, 
there's plenty of active Mailman help available:

Mailman-Users mailing list mailman-us...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3


Adam Goldberg
AGP, LLC
+1-202-507-9900

-Original Message-
From: asterisk-users-boun...@lists.digium.com 
[mailto:asterisk-users-boun...@lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Dave Platt
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 1:34 PM
To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] OT: Explain where mailing list bouncing comes 
from ?

I'm not sure of the precise specifics of how Digium runs the list, but this 
sort of problem has been a "known issue" with mailing list distributions ever 
since SPF and similar technologies showed up, almost a decade ago.  DomainKeys 
and DMARC makes it more of an issue, but the overall problem is not new.

I had to switch mailing-list packages (from Majordomo to GNU Mailman) for the 
lists I run, and configure Mailman properly to avoid the worst of the problem.

In my experience, the problems affect mailing lists where:

-  The mailing list software retransmits an incoming message to
   subscribers, using the same sender address (in the SMTP
   transaction and/or message headers) that the original sender used.

and

-  The sending domain has some sort of anti-forgery technology in
   place - either SPF or DomainKeys can trigger the problem.

When such a message is retransmitted, one of several things can happen when it 
hits a mail server that does anti-spoofing enforcement:

(1) "Hmmm.  This message says it comes from j...@example.com, but the
example.com domain has an SPF record which says that only the
following five IP addresses are authorized mailers for this domain,
and suggests a policy of 'reject' for other IP addresses.  This
message is coming from an IP address which isn't on that list.
Reject it."

or

(2) "Hmmm.  This message says it comes from j...@example.com.  It has
a DomainKeys signature from that domain, which covers the sender ID,
subject, and message body.  The signature doesn't match" [sotto
voce, the Subject header was modified by the mailing list software
to include the group name] "and example.com suggests rejecting
messages which say they're from example.com but have bad signature.
Reject it."

There are almost certainly other, similar scenarios.

As a result, messages of this sort will tend to "bounce" from hosts that 
implement forgery protection, and the mailing-list software will often react to 
a flurry of such bounces by unsubscribing the intended recipient from the list.

None of the workarounds for this are perfect - they all have side effects.

[A] Recipients who are being unsubscribed because gmail (e.g.) is
bouncing such messages, can change their subscription to the
mailing list to "daily digest".  Mailman (and I believe most other
mailing list packages) send out digests as new messages, with their
own domain as the return address, thus avoiding the problems.

[B] For SPF, the mailing list software can be configured to "take
ownership" of the message... rewriting the sender address into a new
form which doesn't break SPF rules.  Examples for a message from
j...@example.com might be

   Joe at example.com via Foobar mailing list 
   Joe 

and so forth.

GNU Mailman has the ability to do something along the lines of the
first example.  It's the configuration I use on the small mailing
list I run.  I believe it also adds a Reply-To: header to the
message to "point back to" the original sender.

It's possible to rewrite/substitute the message used in the SMTP
session, but leave the original sender's address intact in the
message headers.  This will be acceptable to many (but not all)
systems that check SPF.

[C] For DomainKeys... well, if the mailing list software is going to
make any changes at all to the headers on messages it's relaying,
or change the message body at all, it should strip out any
DomainKeys signature that might exist on the message.

Or, it can send the whole inbound message (unmodified) as a MIME
attachment within a new message it originates.  This leaves the
signature intact, but can be hard for many mail programs to handle
gracefully.


It would be up to Digium to do [B] and [C] for the mailing lists, if they so 
choose.

Individual subscribers can do [A] to reduce the risk that they'll be 
unsubscribed from the list whenever an SPF-protected message is sent through 
the list.


--
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation 

Re: [asterisk-users] Difference between Application Set and Function SET?

[Richard Kenner]

> It was only when I ran AsteriskLint over my dialplan that I noticed this:
> 
> https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Asterisk+14+Application_Set
> https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Asterisk+14+Function_SET
> 
> Hmmm, they both seem to do the same thing. Or don't they?

In some sense they do, but one's an application, meaning that it's
like a subprogram in a programming-language sense, and the other is a
function, which returns a value.

-- 
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/

New to Asterisk? Start here:
  https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Difference between Application Set and Function SET?

[Richard Mudgett]

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Jonathan H  wrote:

> It was only when I ran AsteriskLint over my dialplan that I noticed this:
>
> https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Asterisk+14+Application_Set
> https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Asterisk+14+Function_SET
>
> Hmmm, they both seem to do the same thing. Or don't they?
>

Yes they both do the same thing which is set a channel variable.  However,
when they can be invoked is different.  The Set application can only be
invoked in dialplan.  The SET function can be invoked anywhere a function
can be invoked and not just in dialplan.

Richard
-- 
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/

New to Asterisk? Start here:
  https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

[asterisk-users] Difference between Application Set and Function SET?

[Jonathan H]

It was only when I ran AsteriskLint over my dialplan that I noticed this:

https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Asterisk+14+Application_Set
https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Asterisk+14+Function_SET

Hmmm, they both seem to do the same thing. Or don't they?

Confused!

-- 
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/

New to Asterisk? Start here:
  https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] OT: Explain where mailing list bouncing comes from ?

[Dave Platt]

I'm not sure of the precise specifics of how Digium runs the
list, but this sort of problem has been a "known issue" with
mailing list distributions ever since SPF and similar technologies
showed up, almost a decade ago.  DomainKeys and DMARC makes it more of
an issue, but the overall problem is not new.

I had to switch mailing-list packages (from Majordomo to GNU Mailman)
for the lists I run, and configure Mailman properly to avoid the
worst of the problem.

In my experience, the problems affect mailing lists where:

-  The mailing list software retransmits an incoming message to
   subscribers, using the same sender address (in the SMTP
   transaction and/or message headers) that the original sender used.

and

-  The sending domain has some sort of anti-forgery technology in
   place - either SPF or DomainKeys can trigger the problem.

When such a message is retransmitted, one of several things can happen
when it hits a mail server that does anti-spoofing enforcement:

(1) "Hmmm.  This message says it comes from j...@example.com, but the
example.com domain has an SPF record which says that only the
following five IP addresses are authorized mailers for this domain,
and suggests a policy of 'reject' for other IP addresses.  This
message is coming from an IP address which isn't on that list.
Reject it."

or

(2) "Hmmm.  This message says it comes from j...@example.com.  It has
a DomainKeys signature from that domain, which covers the sender ID,
subject, and message body.  The signature doesn't match" [sotto
voce, the Subject header was modified by the mailing list software
to include the group name] "and example.com suggests rejecting
messages which say they're from example.com but have bad signature.
Reject it."

There are almost certainly other, similar scenarios.

As a result, messages of this sort will tend to "bounce" from hosts
that implement forgery protection, and the mailing-list software will
often react to a flurry of such bounces by unsubscribing the intended
recipient from the list.

None of the workarounds for this are perfect - they all have side
effects.

[A] Recipients who are being unsubscribed because gmail (e.g.) is
bouncing such messages, can change their subscription to the
mailing list to "daily digest".  Mailman (and I believe most other
mailing list packages) send out digests as new messages, with their
own domain as the return address, thus avoiding the problems.

[B] For SPF, the mailing list software can be configured to "take
ownership" of the message... rewriting the sender address into a new
form which doesn't break SPF rules.  Examples for a message from
j...@example.com might be

   Joe at example.com via Foobar mailing list 
   Joe 

and so forth.

GNU Mailman has the ability to do something along the lines of the
first example.  It's the configuration I use on the small mailing
list I run.  I believe it also adds a Reply-To: header to the
message to "point back to" the original sender.

It's possible to rewrite/substitute the message used in the SMTP
session, but leave the original sender's address intact in the
message headers.  This will be acceptable to many (but not all)
systems that check SPF.

[C] For DomainKeys... well, if the mailing list software is going to
make any changes at all to the headers on messages it's relaying,
or change the message body at all, it should strip out any
DomainKeys signature that might exist on the message.

Or, it can send the whole inbound message (unmodified) as a MIME
attachment within a new message it originates.  This leaves the
signature intact, but can be hard for many mail programs to handle
gracefully.


It would be up to Digium to do [B] and [C] for the mailing lists, if
they so choose.

Individual subscribers can do [A] to reduce the risk that they'll be
unsubscribed from the list whenever an SPF-protected message is sent
through the list.


-- 
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/

New to Asterisk? Start here:
  https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] OT: Explain where mailing list bouncing comes from ?

[Tim S]

I'd hazard to say it probably is Digium's "fault", this was a recent and
now consistent problem, which started within the last month or so.  I'm on
7 other Linux-related mailing lists which all use similar mailer daemons,
and none have this issue.  I have been subscribed to Asterisk
Users/Developers for over two years without issue.

Since the mailing-list system is seeing "bounces" on outbound, and I am not
when transmitting INTO the mailing list - this tells me that outbound
emails from the mailing-list system to Gmail are getting returned because
of some characteristic (either content, TX security functionality, or
mailer system configuration).  Mail being sent by Digium (even as a conduit
for user communications) can only be diagnosed by Digium.  I'd imagine that
if the mail admin looked at how many bounce emails have since been sent
over time, there will be a spike that can be correlated to:
* sender email addresses
* email subject/body content,
* a change they made in their system,
* a change they were supposed to make to their system but failed to.

And to the person who suggested using a non-free email, I do have those
accounts on my own mail system - but I don't use them for newsletters,
re-occurring bulletins, or public Linux mailing lists where "everyone" is
the receiver.  Not good web hygiene IMHO - like a white picket fence around
a yard, the general public can walk up and talk (to my Gmail), but I prefer
to only let family and friends through the gate and in the front door
(private email account).  This also makes filtering and spam detection much
easier while not sucking up my server time and storage space ;-).

My other issue is the quarterly password email reminder where the password
is sent in plain text... (facepalm).  Probably why spam has been a problem
on this board.

-Tim

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 5:51 AM, John Novack  wrote:

>
> Jonathan H wrote:
>
> On 16 June 2017 at 08:38, J Montoya or A J 
> Stiles  wrote:
>
>
> It's hardly Digium's fault, if Google have decided that playing nicely with
> syntactically-valid messages doesn't fit their business model
>
> Not really Gmail's fault, either.  Someone above said they had the
> same problem with Comcast.net.
>
> Gmail complies with the relevant RFCs just fine. It's most likely
> simply because most people who use email, use Gmail.
>
> In addition, gmail properly implement SPF and DMARC checking.
>
> There's over 1 billion gmail account as of 2016, so that's why most
> people who are bouncing would be gmail.
>
>
> Correct Had another one yesterday
> Am on several other mailing lists that have no such issue.
> Something related to the mailer Digium uses or their ISP
>
>
> John Novack
>
> --
>
> Dog is my Co-pilot
>
>
> --
> _
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>
> Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.
> org/
>
> New to Asterisk? Start here:
>   https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started
>
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>
-- 
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/

New to Asterisk? Start here:
  https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] pjsip: asterisk can't decide which codec to use

[Joshua Colp]

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017, at 12:29 PM, Michael Maier wrote:
> I just tested your fix 2 times w/ using the scenario mentioned in the
> bug report. It has been working for me. No more flipping.
> 
> Asterisks indeed commits more than one codec in ok sdp, but always uses
> the first one afterwards. Hopefully the peer always handles it the same
> way. I would have thought that the ok sdp contains just one codec (the
> best).

There's actually a feature for just that in master,
preferred_codec_only. It'll be available in 15. The new behavior in the
branches with multiple codecs in the answer mirrors that of chan_sip, so
it's pretty safe.

-- 
Joshua Colp
Digium, Inc. | Senior Software Developer
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - US
Check us out at: www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org

-- 
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/

New to Asterisk? Start here:
  https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] pjsip: asterisk can't decide which codec to use

[Michael Maier]

On 05/13/2017 at 07:21 AM Michael Maier wrote:
> On 05/12/2017 at 08:49 PM, Joshua Colp wrote:
>> On Fri, May 12, 2017, at 02:46 PM, Michael Maier wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>>
>>> If I'm doing exactly the same call originated with another extension,
>>> there can't be seen these frequent changes. But the strange thing is,
>>> that in both cases the part between extension and asterisk doesn't show
>>> any codec changes ... .
>>>
>>> Deeper investigations show, that if the conference (callee) sends the
>>> first rtp package (-> g711 - should be g722), things are going choppy, 
>>> if the extension (caller) sends the first package (g722), things are 
>>> running stable.
>>>
>>>
>>> Any idea to convince asterisk always to use the first codec of ok sdp 
>>> or how to convince asterisk to put only one codec to ok sdp (the first).
>>
>> This is not currently an option in chan_pjsip but I'd suggest filing an
>> issue[1] for this scenario with all available information.
>>
>> [1] https://issues.asterisk.org/jira
> 
> https://issues.asterisk.org/jira/browse/ASTERISK-26996

I just tested your fix 2 times w/ using the scenario mentioned in the
bug report. It has been working for me. No more flipping.

Asterisks indeed commits more than one codec in ok sdp, but always uses
the first one afterwards. Hopefully the peer always handles it the same
way. I would have thought that the ok sdp contains just one codec (the
best).


Thanks,
Michael

-- 
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/

New to Asterisk? Start here:
  https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] asterisk 13.16 / pjsip / t.38: res_pjsip_t38.c:207 t38_automatic_reject: Automatically rejecting T.38 request on channel 'PJSIP/91-00000007'

[Joshua Colp]

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017, at 10:49 AM, Michael Maier wrote:



> 
> t38modem and asterisk are using
> 
> m=image 35622 udptl t38
>^
> 
> Provider uses
> 
> m=image 35622 UDPTL t38
>^
> 
> Could this be a problem? If I'm sending internal only, it's always 
> lowercase.

Looking at the tests we have we only use 'udptl' as the transport.
Without diving deep into the SDP negotiator it is possible that it gets
upset at that, as we would only produce 'udptl'. If the SDP negotiator
in PJSIP is case sensitive then you'd get a declined stream like you
see. Looking at the T.38 examples from the ITU doc also shows it in
lowercase, so uppercase is probably not commonly used.

-- 
Joshua Colp
Digium, Inc. | Senior Software Developer
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - US
Check us out at: www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org

-- 
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/

New to Asterisk? Start here:
  https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] asterisk 13.16 / pjsip / t.38: res_pjsip_t38.c:207 t38_automatic_reject: Automatically rejecting T.38 request on channel 'PJSIP/91-00000007'

[Michael Maier]

Am 16.06.2017 um 11:12 schrieb Joshua Colp:

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017, at 02:13 AM, Michael Maier wrote:


Has anybody any idea why asterisk drops the media stream in the 200 OK?
The channel has been T38_ENABLED before! Or is it necessary to add more
debug code? Who does the negotiating?
Only asterisk or is pjsip doing some parts, too?


Asterisk does the T.38 negotiation and produces the answer SDP, PJSIP
does the SDP negotiation. It's likely in the realm of Asterisk where it
is doing that.



t38modem and asterisk are using

m=image 35622 udptl t38
  ^

Provider uses

m=image 35622 UDPTL t38
  ^

Could this be a problem? If I'm sending internal only, it's always 
lowercase.


--
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/

New to Asterisk? Start here:
 https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
  http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] OT: Explain where mailing list bouncing comes from ?

[John Novack]

Jonathan H wrote:

On 16 June 2017 at 08:38, J Montoya or A J Stiles
 wrote:


It's hardly Digium's fault, if Google have decided that playing nicely with
syntactically-valid messages doesn't fit their business model

Not really Gmail's fault, either.  Someone above said they had the
same problem with Comcast.net.

Gmail complies with the relevant RFCs just fine. It's most likely
simply because most people who use email, use Gmail.

In addition, gmail properly implement SPF and DMARC checking.

There's over 1 billion gmail account as of 2016, so that's why most
people who are bouncing would be gmail.


Correct Had another one yesterday
Am on several other mailing lists that have no such issue.
Something related to the mailer Digium uses or their ISP


John Novack

--

Dog is my Co-pilot

-- 
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/

New to Asterisk? Start here:
  https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is this the future of telephony?

[J Montoya or A J Stiles]

On Friday 16 Jun 2017, Christopher van de Sande wrote:
> So does anyone here think the traditional telephone company will go
> extinct, and voice communication will take place via email like (or
> equal to) sip uri's?

Hardly!

The job of the "traditional telephone company" has always been to connect a 
pair of wires at one end to a different pair of wires at the other end.  That 
isn't going away anytime soon.  There are more pairs of wires, with more and 
faster-changing signals travelling along them, that still need marshalling -- 
perhaps in more complicated ways than just one-to-one.

Whenever I am sending electrical impulses along wires and possibly via radio 
links, maybe even out into space and back, whether to someone in the same 
street or a different country, someone has to be making sure that those 
electrical impulses come out in the right place.

That is still the domain of telecommunications companies; they are just doing 
it with rather more bandwidth than the human voice.  The need for electrical 
impulses to be delivered to the correct destination still stands.  What has 
changed is, there are more ways than ever to make use of this "electronic 
logistics" service, and markets are emerging and evolving.

-- 
JM
Note:  Originating address only accepts e-mail from list!  If replying off-
list, change address to asterisk1list at earthshod dot co dot uk .

-- 
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/

New to Asterisk? Start here:
  https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] asterisk 13.16 / pjsip / t.38: res_pjsip_t38.c:207 t38_automatic_reject: Automatically rejecting T.38 request on channel 'PJSIP/91-00000007'

[Joshua Colp]

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017, at 02:13 AM, Michael Maier wrote:

> Has anybody any idea why asterisk drops the media stream in the 200 OK? 
> The channel has been T38_ENABLED before! Or is it necessary to add more 
> debug code? Who does the negotiating? 
> Only asterisk or is pjsip doing some parts, too?

Asterisk does the T.38 negotiation and produces the answer SDP, PJSIP
does the SDP negotiation. It's likely in the realm of Asterisk where it
is doing that.

-- 
Joshua Colp
Digium, Inc. | Senior Software Developer
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - US
Check us out at: www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org

-- 
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/

New to Asterisk? Start here:
  https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] OT: Explain where mailing list bouncing comes from ?

[Daniel Tryba]

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 08:38:59AM +0100, J Montoya or A J Stiles wrote:
> > Whatever has been done, if anything, isn't working effectively.  At this
> > point I'd like to see some response from the mailing list admin about any
> > root-cause efforts, AFAIC this is starting to smear the Digium/Asterisk
> > brand's ability to handle IT related issues...  No response = no confidence
> > vote.
> 
> It's hardly Digium's fault,

Actually it is. They are pretending to send email from our/your/my
emailadresses without taking the proper steps how to do this in a modern
age.

[snip google rant]

DMARC reports inform me that most rejections come from Google (500+),
Microsoft has far far less rejection (less than 10 IIRC), then comcast
and some other mail providers. It is just that most people (choose) use
Google, get over it.

What Google (and many many others) is doing is for the benifit of reducing
email spoofing and spam. Proper SPF/DKIM/DMARC are a must if you want to
send mail to the big parties. The time you could simply run your own
smtpd without any cares are long since gone, you need to comply to
current SMTP related RFCs to get mail accepted.

I'm still maintaining the idea that simply enabling DKIM signing on this
list solves the problem. It is supported by the MTAs I can see in the
headers and I linked to a howto in the past.

But Digium doesn't need to have this kind of knowledge, their business
is not SMTP based but SIP based (and I think they are great at that
business). But since the mailinglists are supplemental support services
it would be in their best interest to fix this mess in some way.


-- 
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/

New to Asterisk? Start here:
  https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is this the future of telephony?

[Daniel Tryba]

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 08:56:29PM -0400, Christopher van de Sande wrote:
> I just setup an anonymous endpoint in pjsip.conf and a context that
> forwards to $EXTEN and when I setup the correct SRV records, it seems
> that any SIP client that's smart enough can just dial my SIP/email
> address.  Is this what the future looks like?

Look forward to a lot of SPIT (SPAM over Internet Telephony).

BTW how to you expect to get the data on your mobile device? That is a
"traditional" telephone company its bussiness, providing network
capabilities to endusers.

-- 
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/

New to Asterisk? Start here:
  https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] OT: Explain where mailing list bouncing comes from ?

[Jonathan H]

On 16 June 2017 at 08:38, J Montoya or A J Stiles
 wrote:

> It's hardly Digium's fault, if Google have decided that playing nicely with
> syntactically-valid messages doesn't fit their business model

Not really Gmail's fault, either.  Someone above said they had the
same problem with Comcast.net.

Gmail complies with the relevant RFCs just fine. It's most likely
simply because most people who use email, use Gmail.

In addition, gmail properly implement SPF and DMARC checking.

There's over 1 billion gmail account as of 2016, so that's why most
people who are bouncing would be gmail.

-- 
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/

New to Asterisk? Start here:
  https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] OT: Explain where mailing list bouncing comes from ?

[J Montoya or A J Stiles]

On Thursday 15 Jun 2017, Tim S wrote:
> Whatever has been done, if anything, isn't working effectively.  At this
> point I'd like to see some response from the mailing list admin about any
> root-cause efforts, AFAIC this is starting to smear the Digium/Asterisk
> brand's ability to handle IT related issues...  No response = no confidence
> vote.

It's hardly Digium's fault, if Google have decided that playing nicely with 
syntactically-valid messages doesn't fit their business model  (which is to 
know everything about everyone; purely in order to push them the "right" 
advertisements, in spite of whatever uses less other actors with less benign 
intentions might make of this information, of course).  

The cure is to pay for a proper e-mail hosting service.  "Free" services such 
as Gmail are overpriced.

-- 
JM or AJS

Note:  Originating address only accepts e-mail from list!  If replying off-
list, change address to asterisk1list at earthshod dot co dot uk .

-- 
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/

New to Asterisk? Start here:
  https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users