--On Wednesday, June 23, 2004 20:21:14 -0400 J C Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 00:46:09 +0200
Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:22 AM -0400 2004-06-19, J C Lawrence wrote:
If the client generates the VERP, the MTA should pass that through
unchanged. At that
At 10:22 AM -0400 2004-06-19, J C Lawrence wrote:
Does 2.1.5 formally require plus addressing support in the MTA?
That's only required if you let the MTA generate the VERP.
I
thought that was still optional if you didn't use
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 00:46:09 +0200
Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:22 AM -0400 2004-06-19, J C Lawrence wrote:
Does 2.1.5 formally require plus addressing support in the MTA?
That's only required if you let the MTA generate the VERP.
Not quite. It minimally requires plus
At 11:03 PM -0400 2004-06-20, J C Lawrence wrote:
Well of course that's what VERP was invented for after all.
The problem there is that many ISPs and colocation facilities don't and
won't support VERP.
If you're a transit MTA, then whether or not VERP was used to
create the envelope sender
At 8:21 PM -0400 2004-06-23, J C Lawrence wrote:
Not quite. It minimally requires plus addressing to be enabled in the
MTA (assuming it supports it).
Only if the MTA in question is receiving a VERPed recipient
address. Mailman will never generate that kind of address (although
users could
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:10:29 +0200
Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 8:21 PM -0400 2004-06-23, J C Lawrence wrote:
The only time the VERPed address comes into play is if there is a
bounce generated to the envelope sender address that is created by
Mailman, and even then it's just a
At 5:28 PM -0400 2004-06-17, Greg Stark wrote:
Well I said what I meant, old version of sendmail. 50k was indeed the
standard maximum size for sendmail installs prior to MIME attachments and
html-mail and all these new-fangled gadgets.
Just how old are we talking here? Going back to the very
On 17 Jun 2004 14:36:39 -0400
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Really Mailman should simply not trust outside data for any
purpose. It should treat the bounces received from mailing list
messages purely as hints. It should then send its *own* message with
content not subject to any
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:19:25 -0400
Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Upgrade to Mailman 2.1.5, which sends out probe messages after the
bounce threshold is reached. Members will only get disabled if the
probe message bounces, it should be computationally infeasible to
forge a probe
J C Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 17 Jun 2004 14:36:39 -0400
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the absence of VERP this is far more difficult than it at first
seems. The simple question becomes, even in the presence of a
customised test message, how do you recognise a bounce
On 20 Jun 2004 20:56:39 -0400
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
J C Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 17 Jun 2004 14:36:39 -0400 Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the absence of VERP this is far more difficult than it at first
seems. The simple question becomes, even in the
On Thu, 2004-06-17 at 21:19, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Upgrade to Mailman 2.1.5, which sends out probe messages after the
bounce threshold is reached. Members will only get disabled if the
probe message bounces, it should be computationally infeasible to forge
a probe bounce, and bogus probes
Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 2:36 PM -0400 2004-06-17, Greg Stark wrote:
Virus scans are only one type of bounce that could cause someone to be
unsubscribed spuriously. For example, most mail servers have a maximum
message
size for example. Consider the security
On Thu, 2004-06-17 at 14:36, Greg Stark wrote:
It is using messages posted to the list -- the content and format of which it
does not control -- to detect bouncing email addresses. Because of this it
cannot tell if the bounces it's receiving are caused by a broken email address
or caused by
So the problem I described last January and again mentioned last September is
still happening to me, and now to a lot more people. It will only become more
and more prevalent as viruses become more common and sites that filter them
become more common.
Perhaps I should restate the problem more
15 matches
Mail list logo
