Centuries ago, Nostradamus predicted that Jeroen van Aart would write on Fri
Oct 10 13:30:12 2008:
>
> Just somewhat guessing. It looks like the email has a null address as
> the address where it was sent from. It could be that ASSP sees that as a
> bounce email and won't add emails with null addresses to the whitelist.
> Such behaviour would make sense. But I haven't verified if indeed that's
> how ASSP does it.
>
> Regards,
> Jeroen
>
An interesting and peculiar phenomenon. I also have not looked at the
Perl to verify if that is what was happening, but I suspect that your
guess is correct. I spent Friday afternoon making various
improvements to my mail delivery software -- at one point downloading
the source code to "nail", making some necessary changes, and then
recompiling it -- and I am now getting the desired behavior, as the
following log excerpts show:
Oct-12-08 13:22:44 Connected: 127.0.0.1:41243 -> 127.0.0.1:25 -> 127.0.0.1:24
Oct-12-08 13:22:44 127.0.0.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
recipient accepted unchecked: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oct-12-08 13:22:44 127.0.0.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
whitelist addition: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oct-12-08 13:22:45 127.0.0.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] is
disconnected
This is in contrast to what was happening on Friday, which, as you
recall, was:
Oct-10-08 12:37:17 Connected: 127.0.0.1:56581 -> 127.0.0.1:25 -> 127.0.0.1:24
Oct-10-08 12:37:17 127.0.0.1 <> to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] recipient accepted
unchecked: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oct-10-08 12:37:18 127.0.0.1 <> to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] is disconnected
I do not know at what point my electronic address starting appearing
inside those angle brackets, nor when I started getting automatic
whitelist addition, but I assume, as you do, that those two events are
related, and I assume that the former event resulted from my changes
to "nail".
Incidentally, although this admittedly does not have much to do with
ASSP, does anyone on this mailing list have any idea why "nail -t"
(prior to my having changed it, last Friday afternoon) only passes
along a few, hard-coded, headers? In contrast, "sendmail -t" passes
along every header in its input, regardless of whether it attaches any
special significance to it, and this is, I think, the correct
behavior. Another difference is that "nail -t" ignores addresses
passed as command-line arguments, whereas "sendmail -t" adds those
addresses to those it finds in the message's headers, but this is a
minor difference, and one that I can live with. I do not, however,
see how the ignoring of headers in the input message is behavior of
which one can say, "that's not a bug -- that's a feature!" but it does
seem to have been very deliberately written into nail. Any answers to
this question?
Jay F. Shachter
6424 N Whipple St
Chicago IL 60645-4111
(1-773)7613784
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://m5.chicago.il.us
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Assp-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-user
