--
La información incluida en el presente correo electronico y cualquier archivo
adjunto al mismo están dirigidos exclusivamente a su destinatario.Pueden
contener información confidencial o privilegiada. Si recibe esta comunicación
sin ser el
* Elie Rosenblum:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 07:41:04AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst:
What's painful about it?
I wouldn't be surprised if it already increases load on
lists.debian.org significantly.
Actually, in my experience on very heavily utilized mail servers,
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On list servers, where most mail is outgoing? This would be really
suprising.
Assume that the majority of the outgoing mail volume from a list
server depends on incoming mail to this list server.
If you reduce the incoming volume to this list server,
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Le Lun 27 Juin 2005 10:14, Stig Sandbeck Mathisen a écrit :
Since this is contrary to my experience with greylisting, I'd like to
hear more about your experiences with it, and why you consider
greylisting really painful.
I already did : for personnal use (and I use
Le Mar 28 Juin 2005 08:36, Bob Proulx a écrit :
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Le Lun 27 Juin 2005 10:14, Stig Sandbeck Mathisen a écrit :
Since this is contrary to my experience with greylisting, I'd
like to hear more about your experiences with it, and why you
consider greylisting really
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 08:58:40AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Le Mar 28 Juin 2005 08:36, Bob Proulx a écrit :
I think you misunderstand. Remember that only the first exchange
with a new address is delayed. After the initial exchange there is
no more delay. Your continuing
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I fully disagree, greylisting is really painful
Since this is contrary to my experience with greylisting, I'd like to
hear more about your experiences with it, and why you consider
greylisting really painful.
I'm also interested in hearing about the
Le Lun 27 Juin 2005 10:14, Stig Sandbeck Mathisen a écrit :
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I fully disagree, greylisting is really painful
Since this is contrary to my experience with greylisting, I'd like to
hear more about your experiences with it, and why you consider
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 07:41:04AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst:
What's painful about it?
I wouldn't be surprised if it already increases load on
lists.debian.org significantly.
Actually, in my experience on very heavily utilized mail servers,
greylisting greatly
Le jeudi 23 juin 2005 à 19:33 +0200, Andreas Barth a écrit :
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050623 19:31]:
On Jun 23, Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are plans to merge @packages.d.o and @packages.QA.d.o, so that
both reach the maintainer and the PTS subscribers. The
On Jun 24, Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patches accepted. The PTS source is in CVS (cvs.debian.org:/cvs/qa/pts)
and you can see the installation at
master.debian.org:/org/packages.qa.debian.org/
I am not the one who is polluting the rest of the network, if you can't
get it right
Il giorno dom, 19-06-2005 alle 19:19 +0200, Josselin Mouette ha scritto:
Le dimanche 19 juin 2005 à 19:11 +0200, Frans Pop a écrit :
If I am blocked by something like SORBS when answering installation
reports or something like that, I will sometimes resend a mail through my
ISP, sometimes
* Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050622 11:22]:
On Monday 20 June 2005 21:45, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, the major problem now are the @packages.debian.org addresses, I
have ~20 of them and most days they account for 1/3 to 1/2 of all the
spam I receive (and almost
* Andreas Barth [Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:54:29 +0200]:
The packages.d.o-addresses are a really useful tool for contacting
multiple maintainers e.g. for transitions. They were quite helpful
during e.g. the release of sarge.
There are plans to merge @packages.d.o and @packages.QA.d.o, so that
* Adeodato Simó ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050623 16:50]:
* Andreas Barth [Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:54:29 +0200]:
The packages.d.o-addresses are a really useful tool for contacting
multiple maintainers e.g. for transitions. They were quite helpful
during e.g. the release of sarge.
There are plans
On Thursday 23 June 2005 21:54, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050622 11:22]:
On Monday 20 June 2005 21:45, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, the major problem now are the @packages.debian.org addresses, I
have ~20 of them and most
On Jun 23, Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are plans to merge @packages.d.o and @packages.QA.d.o, so that
both reach the maintainer and the PTS subscribers. The QA address
requires the presence of an X-PTS-Approved header to let a message
reach package@p.q.d.o, but I
* Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050623 18:04]:
On Thursday 23 June 2005 21:54, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The packages.d.o-addresses are a really useful tool for contacting
multiple maintainers e.g. for transitions. They were quite helpful
during e.g. the release of sarge.
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050623 19:31]:
On Jun 23, Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are plans to merge @packages.d.o and @packages.QA.d.o, so that
both reach the maintainer and the PTS subscribers. The QA address
requires the presence of an X-PTS-Approved header
* Thomas Bushnell BSG
| Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| On 18-Jun-05, 17:24 (CDT), Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| An email address with such blocking on it is therefore not suitable
| for the Maintainer: field of a Debian package.
|
| Any spam filtering
Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| I'm saying you must make sure you can get bug reports from users.
So having you maintainer address be a sink to /dev/null would be fine
since you can read bug reports on the web.
No. You need to be able to get bug reports from users even if they
Steve Kemp wrote:
Email may appear to be realtime, and you may even expect it to
be because this is frequently how it works. But this is not guaranteed.
Either way people's, misguided, beliefs on the realtimeness of
email delivery is not a valid reason to choose against greylisting.
Russell Coker wrote:
Why is it tolerable to receive 200 spams in a day? On a bad day I will
receive over 100 spams even though I use most of the anti-spam measures that
some people in this discussion don't like.
I receive ~500/day. Of those maybe 4 make it through SpamAssassin. I
rarely
On Tuesday 21 June 2005 09:21, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 05:58:11PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
Rejecting every suggestion for an improvement is not helpful.
Yes, it is, if every suggestion for improvement is a poor one. Lack
of good ideas does not
On Tuesday 21 June 2005 01:46, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You could help by listing the anti-spam measures that you consider to be
acceptable. Rejecting every suggestion for an improvement is not
helpful.
I am ok with anti-spam
On Monday 20 June 2005 21:45, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, the major problem now are the @packages.debian.org addresses, I
have ~20 of them and most days they account for 1/3 to 1/2 of all the
spam I receive (and almost all of it could be blocked with the CBL).
Why not just
On Jun 22, Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not just block mail sent to the packages.debian.org addresses? No-one
sends real mail to them anyway so they are just a free pass for spammers.
Mainly because I do not know if I can do it without creating
backscatter, and I will not
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 21 June 2005 01:46, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You could help by listing the anti-spam measures that you consider to be
acceptable. Rejecting every suggestion for an improvement is
On Wednesday 22 June 2005 19:32, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am ok with anti-spam measures which enable a well-behaving false
positive sender to know they have run afoul, and in which the
maintainers of the mechanism promise to try and adjust the system so
that the
On Wednesday 22 June 2005 19:23, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 22, Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not just block mail sent to the packages.debian.org addresses?
No-one sends real mail to them anyway so they are just a free pass for
spammers.
Mainly because I do
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 07:21:52PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
On Monday 20 June 2005 21:45, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, the major problem now are the @packages.debian.org addresses, I
have ~20 of them and most days they account for 1/3 to 1/2 of all the
spam I receive
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 07:19:44PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
On Tuesday 21 June 2005 09:21, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 05:58:11PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
Rejecting every suggestion for an improvement is not helpful.
Yes, it is, if every
On Thursday 23 June 2005 07:17, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, it is, if every suggestion for improvement is a poor one. Lack
of good ideas does not justify bad ones; not having any good ideas does
not invalidate or in any way reduce the value of pointing out the bad
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:51:57 +1000, Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Saturday 18 June 2005 01:07, Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I perfectly understand what SMTP is, and I perfectly *don't*
understand why having a 30 minutes delay or even a 2 or 3 hours
delay in some
Hi,
Frans Pop wrote:
Try mine: 195.240.184.66
And yes, it is static and not dynamic but unlikely to change rarely.
Not listed either.
I started using my own mailserver because the one from my provider was
down a lot for a while or not delivering within something like 8 hours
(they seem
On Sunday 19 June 2005 08:22, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
If you don't want to accept mail from users, for whatever reason, you
don't have to. But Debian requires that uploads have a valid email
address: and that means one that accepts
On Sunday 19 June 2005 08:24, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
An email address with such blocking on it is therefore not suitable
for the Maintainer: field of a Debian package.
What anti-spam measures do you consider acceptable for a Debian
On Saturday 18 June 2005 01:07, Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I perfectly understand what SMTP is, and I perfectly *don't* understand
why having a 30 minutes delay or even a 2 or 3 hours delay in some
conditions is tolerable.
Why is it tolerable to receive 200 spams in a day? On a
On Saturday 18 June 2005 01:33, Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you didn't read one of my first posts : when the mail you receive
comes from a big big big MX, and that they see a greylisted domain,
since the time is sometimes 5 minutes, somtimes 10 and sometimes 20,
they choose to
On Thursday 16 June 2005 23:48, Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do _not_ want to have my debian.org mail forwarding go through a
greylisting service. I've had to deal with one too many user
complaints due to greylisting. If it is a configurable service, then
fine, other people may
Le Lun 20 Juin 2005 09:58, Russell Coker a écrit :
On Saturday 18 June 2005 01:33, Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
you didn't read one of my first posts : when the mail you receive
comes from a big big big MX, and that they see a greylisted domain,
since the time is sometimes 5
Le Lun 20 Juin 2005 09:51, Russell Coker a écrit :
On Saturday 18 June 2005 01:07, Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I perfectly understand what SMTP is, and I perfectly *don't*
understand why having a 30 minutes delay or even a 2 or 3 hours
delay in some conditions is tolerable.
Le Lun 20 Juin 2005 10:02, Russell Coker a écrit :
On Thursday 16 June 2005 23:48, Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I do _not_ want to have my debian.org mail forwarding go through a
greylisting service. I've had to deal with one too many user
complaints due to greylisting. If it is
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why would it be such a problem if you use a non-Debian email address for
Debian correspondence? As far as I recall I have never used my Debian email
address in the From: field of an email or in a Debian package maintainer
field.
Like I said, it
On Monday 20 June 2005 18:09, Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why would it be such a problem if you use a non-Debian email address for
Debian correspondence? As far as I recall I have never used my Debian
email address in the From: field of an
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 05:58:11PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
Do you have any evidence to support yout claim that big mail servers are
configured to handle gray-listing servers differently from other mail
servers?
Not quite the same thing as Pierre was describing but some mail server
On Monday 20 June 2005 18:17, Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you have any evidence to support yout claim that big mail servers
are configured to handle gray-listing servers differently from other
mail servers?
I do. I know personnaly some admins of big MX (not necessarily
On Monday 20 June 2005 18:20, Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know that, but it does not (IMHO) justify the use of greylising for
everybody by default. I prefer to receive spam (and I do a lot through
my @debian.org address, despite the fact that it's quite recent) that
is filtered
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do. I know personnaly some admins of big MX (not necessarily ISPs,
french schools/universities in my case) that have a special rule for
domain that they know practicing greylisting, and that *force* the
delay to be of 30 to 60 minutes. and they
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 02:30:50PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is realtime a requirement for bug reporting?
Since delays could be weeks from graylisting--or worse--yes.
Uh, no. If properly configured, graylisting will not produce such
* Stig Sandbeck Mathisen [Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 01:07:22PM +0200]:
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've written a little postfix POLICY daemon that does what I
explained here. It's called whitelister, and it's in the
repo. Though, it has not been (AFAIK) used in a big queue, but I
On Jun 20, Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess that this doesn't have to be an @debian.org address. I've been
considering removing my @debian.org address, the only things that go to it
are debian-private (which I can hopefully get directed to another address)
and spam.
I
On 18-Jun-05, 17:24 (CDT), Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An email address with such blocking on it is therefore not suitable
for the Maintainer: field of a Debian package.
Any spam filtering system is going to have *some* false positives. Are
you claiming that if I do *any*
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 18-Jun-05, 17:24 (CDT), Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An email address with such blocking on it is therefore not suitable
for the Maintainer: field of a Debian package.
Any spam filtering system is going to have *some* false
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You could help by listing the anti-spam measures that you consider to be
acceptable. Rejecting every suggestion for an improvement is not helpful.
I am ok with anti-spam measures which enable a well-behaving false
positive sender to know they have run
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 02:30:50PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is realtime a requirement for bug reporting?
Since delays could be weeks from graylisting--or worse--yes.
Uh, no. If properly
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 18-Jun-05, 17:24 (CDT), Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An email address with such blocking on it is therefore not suitable
for the Maintainer: field of a Debian package.
Any spam filtering system is going to have *some* false
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 08:48:05AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 02:30:50PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Since delays could be weeks from graylisting--or worse--yes.
Uh, no. If properly configured, graylisting
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That being said, even if you couldn't do that, there still are ways to
avoid the problem: e.g., do graylisting based on the /24 of the sending
host, rather than on the /32, and make the delay only valid for five
minutes rather than an entire hour.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 02:03:34PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That being said, even if you couldn't do that, there still are ways to
avoid the problem: e.g., do graylisting based on the /24 of the sending
host, rather than on the /32, and
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 05:58:11PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
Rejecting every suggestion for an improvement is not helpful.
Yes, it is, if every suggestion for improvement is a poor one. Lack
of good ideas does not justify bad ones; not having any good ideas does
not invalidate or in any way
Le dimanche 19 juin 2005 00:34 +0200, Marco d'Itri a crit :
Just to make clear: this requirement of yours is one you have
invented.
Me and a large part of the Internet.
(Hint: RFCs are not the word of $GOD, but something which sites agree
about to help interoperability.)
How about all
Hi,
Frans Pop wrote:
I think blocking mails based on an address being dynamic/static sucks.
Indeed, but the only systems that send out email from dynamic IP
addresses are spam zombies (90%[1]) and people who run their own MTA,
which again are divided into clueless idiots running an open relay
Simon Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is simply no point in running a mail server on a dynamic IP. It
will not be able to accept mail in a reliable way, even with dyndns, so
you need some other host to accept and forward your mail to you anyway,
so you can as well route it through a
On Sunday 19 June 2005 17:48, Simon Richter wrote:
Hi,
Frans Pop wrote:
I think blocking mails based on an address being dynamic/static
sucks.
Indeed, but the only systems that send out email from dynamic IP
addresses are spam zombies (90%[1]) and people who run their own MTA,
You are
Le Dim 19 Juin 2005 18:14, Frans Pop a crit :
On Sunday 19 June 2005 17:48, Simon Richter wrote:
Hi,
Frans Pop wrote:
I think blocking mails based on an address being dynamic/static
sucks.
Indeed, but the only systems that send out email from dynamic IP
addresses are spam
Hi,
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
There is simply no point in running a mail server on a dynamic IP.
Would you define dynamic IP for me, just so I can be sure I know
what you're talking about?
It sounds here as if you mean an IP address which changes with some
frequency. Is that right?
Yes,
Le dimanche 19 juin 2005 18:39 +0200, Simon Richter a crit :
OTOH, I think greylisting can help here, by applying it to hosts that
are listed as being dynamic. If the technology your ISP uses to connect
you to the internet is so strikingly similar to the technology used by
people who don't
On Sunday 19 June 2005 18:39, Simon Richter wrote:
Hrm, that would indeed be a reason to accept mail from some IPs inside
such dynamic blocks. Your IP does not seem to be listed as being
dynamic, though. :-)
Try mine: 195.240.184.66
And yes, it is static and not dynamic but unlikely to change
Le dimanche 19 juin 2005 19:11 +0200, Frans Pop a crit :
If I am blocked by something like SORBS when answering installation
reports or something like that, I will sometimes resend a mail through my
ISP, sometimes I just say @[EMAIL PROTECTED]@ you, if you don't want to
receive my
mail,
Simon Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, even if said frequency is very low. If my ISP does not give me a
guarantee that when I reconnect I will get the same address again, and
that noone else is going to use that address, I consider it a dynamic IP.
If so, lots of ISPs (mine, for
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 03:13:27PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Steve Kemp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Choosing not to use greylisting because it causes mail to become
non-realtime is *not* a valid complaint. Which is the point I was
trying to make in a roundabout fashion.
Simon Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
So my IP address, which my ISP promises will always be the same, and
is initialized by DHCP, is static. But most of the IP addresses in
the block are handed out dynamically. How will you be able to tell?
Not reliably,
Hi,
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
So my IP address, which my ISP promises will always be the same, and
is initialized by DHCP, is static. But most of the IP addresses in
the block are handed out dynamically. How will you be able to tell?
Not reliably, that is sure, but the DUL has been pretty
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It stops a lot of viruses and spam, with no false positives. What's the
problem?
It has false positives, in fact, because it fails badly for certain
perfectly reasonable kinds of email delivery.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So what? It's *e-mail*. If you need realtime, pick up a phone, or use
one of any of the innumerable chat systems.
Ok, from now on, I should report bugs to you by phone?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On 6/18/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So what? It's *e-mail*. If you need realtime, pick up a phone, or use
one of any of the innumerable chat systems.
Ok, from now on, I should report bugs to you by phone?
Is realtime a
Blars Blarson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CBL only lists addresses that spam thier spamtraps, and removes
listings automaticly after several days. They attempt not to list
mail servers. To be removed immediatly, just fill out their web form
with the IP address to be removed.
Why is it my
On Jun 18, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is it my responsiblity to remove myself from CBL when you start
refusing mail from me? What am I supposed to do when there become
fifteen misbehaving BLs out there each in its own special way?
Stop sending mail from
Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 6/18/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So what? It's *e-mail*. If you need realtime, pick up a phone, or use
one of any of the innumerable chat systems.
Ok, from now on, I should
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Jun 18, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is it my responsiblity to remove myself from CBL when you start
refusing mail from me? What am I supposed to do when there become
fifteen misbehaving BLs out there each in its own special
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
Stop sending mail from dynamically-assigned IP addresses. Deal.
Gee. There is no reliable way to know whether an IP address is static
or not. SMTP is supposed to work from both: which means that
graylisting is in fact violating the protocols in a
Le samedi 18 juin 2005 23:28 +0200, Marco d'Itri a crit :
On Jun 18, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is it my responsiblity to remove myself from CBL when you start
refusing mail from me? What am I supposed to do when there become
fifteen misbehaving BLs out there each
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 11:28:25PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Stop sending mail from dynamically-assigned IP addresses. Deal.
Please show me how to check for dynamically-assigned IP.
Bastian
--
That unit is a woman.
A mass of conflicting impulses.
-- Spock and
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 02:39:45PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
So what? It's *e-mail*. If you need realtime, pick up a phone, or use
one of any of the innumerable chat systems.
Email is realtime. I receive mails much more quickly than five minutes
on average; within seconds, typically, even
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 05:39:10PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Email is realtime. I receive mails much more quickly than five minutes
on average; within seconds, typically, even for round-trips to many
mailing lists.
Email may appear to be realtime, and you may even expect it to
be
Steve Kemp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Email may appear to be realtime, and you may even expect it to
be because this is frequently how it works. But this is not guaranteed.
The RFC requires best effort.
Either way people's, misguided, beliefs on the realtimeness of
email delivery is
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 03:08:38PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Steve Kemp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Email may appear to be realtime, and you may even expect it to
be because this is frequently how it works. But this is not guaranteed.
The RFC requires best effort.
Sure.
Steve Kemp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Choosing not to use greylisting because it causes mail to become
non-realtime is *not* a valid complaint. Which is the point I was
trying to make in a roundabout fashion.
People are not using realtime in its technical sense here. They are
using it to
On Jun 18, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why should I have to do extra work to save you the effort? I guess
Why should I waste a huge quantity of resources because a few people
cannot accept that for most sites the costs/benefits ratio of accepting
mail from dynamically-assigned
On Jun 18, Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 11:28:25PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Stop sending mail from dynamically-assigned IP addresses. Deal.
Please show me how to check for dynamically-assigned IP.
If your ISP is a good ISP, this will be advertised (by way
On Jun 18, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is it my responsiblity to remove myself from CBL when you start
refusing mail from me? What am I supposed to do when there become
fifteen misbehaving BLs out there each in its own special way?
Stop sending mail from
On Jun 18, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Email is realtime. I receive mails much more quickly than five minutes
on average; within seconds, typically, even for round-trips to many
mailing lists. Reducing that to minutes on average is beyond unacceptable.
What I like of you is your
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Jun 18, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why should I have to do extra work to save you the effort? I guess
Why should I waste a huge quantity of resources because a few people
cannot accept that for most sites the costs/benefits
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Jun 18, Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 11:28:25PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Stop sending mail from dynamically-assigned IP addresses. Deal.
Please show me how to check for dynamically-assigned IP.
If your ISP is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Jun 18, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is it my responsiblity to remove myself from CBL when you start
refusing mail from me? What am I supposed to do when there become
fifteen misbehaving BLs out there each in its own special
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Jun 18, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Email is realtime. I receive mails much more quickly than five minutes
on average; within seconds, typically, even for round-trips to many
mailing lists. Reducing that to minutes on average is beyond
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jun 18, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Email is realtime. I receive mails much more quickly than five minutes
on average; within seconds, typically, even for round-trips to many
mailing lists. Reducing that to minutes on average is beyond
On Jun 19, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to make clear: this requirement of yours is one you have
invented.
Me and a large part of the Internet.
(Hint: RFCs are not the word of $GOD, but something which sites agree
about to help interoperability.)
An email address with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Jun 19, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to make clear: this requirement of yours is one you have
invented.
Me and a large part of the Internet.
What large part?
for the Maintainer: field of a Debian package.
So sue me.
Naw,
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
