Wow, that was fast. Why do you suppose I didn't receive Mr. Varnell's response to my original post this morning?
On 9/19/17, Joel Esler (jesler) <[email protected]> wrote: > I don’t think we need it. The only people that really need to worry about a > configuration like that are people that use Mutt/Pine/etc, and generally > those people know how to set those particular settings. > > > -- > Joel Esler | Talos: Manager | [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2017, at 6:28 PM, Crystalslave > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > To be honest, I'm not sure if the verbiage should be removed > wholesale. I didn't include the return path in last night's original > post, and when Mr. Varnell replied this morning, I didn't see the > reply in my inbox. I only found it by browsing to the archive and > seeing it there. So something was definitely missing. > > To be clear, I've never bothered with a host-based mail client like > Thunderbird or Evolution. Heretofore, I've never needed to. This > correspondence has been maintained solely through the standard Gmail > web client. > > That seems to be problematic. In response to Reindl's post, I did some > research pertaining to mail headers. Seen below is the header that was > automatically generated by the Gmail web client for the post that I > made this morning: > > --- > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Received: by 10.157.48.116 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:52:13 -0700 (PDT) > Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 12:52:13 -0500 > Delivered-To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <cabmdtuazhp8_8mouaj843s1bsn6xq43ycga27oiesujshai...@mail.gmail.com<mailto:cabmdtuazhp8_8mouaj843s1bsn6xq43ycga27oiesujshai...@mail.gmail.com>> > Subject: Part 2: Dynamic engine module for scanning media files (e.g., > MP3, MP4, etc.)? > From: Crystalslave <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Return-Path: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > --- > > Note the newline between Content-Type and Return-Path. That demarcates > the beginning of the message body. In other words, the return path is > only present because I manually added it. > > This may be the only viable approach for a Gmail user who doesn't want > to bother with a host-based web client. > > Is that perhaps why the verbiage was there in the first place? > > Note also the absence of a "Sender" field. It seems to have been > replaced by "Delivered-To." Could that also have been problematic? > > For many of you folks, this mailing list stuff probably seems > second-nature, but when I woke up this morning, I didn't even know > what an envelope sender was. I only learned how to view the full email > header by visiting this page: > > https://support.google.com/mail/answer/22454?hl=en > > In short, I just think more could be done to make mailing list use a > little more straightforward for those of us who have been spoiled by > the click-and-post nature of forums. > > Just my two cents. :) > > On 9/19/17, Joel Esler (jesler) <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2017, at 2:48 PM, Kris Deugau > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Crystalslave wrote: > Return-Path: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > First off, my apologies for the confusion. This is my first time > posting to a mailing list; I didn't really know how to handle the > return path thing, so I had to start over. Is this better? The return > path goes at the top of the message body, right? Or is it the subject > line? The verbiage on the ML FAQ is a little ambiguous. > > http://www.clamav.net/documents/mailing-lists-faq > > TBH I had to go have a look to see what you were talking about; in ~20+ > years participating in various lists like this I've never met one that had > such a strange public-facing requirement for something that's part of the > internals of normal mail system operation. "Return-Path" is a generated > header most commonly added to a message on final delivery, not something > you > add in the body or as an outgoing header. > > The sentence "Please check that your outgoing messages start with a line > like the following: Return-Path: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > where [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> is the mail account which > you > used to subscribe to the mailing-list." should really be removed outright, > along with the last sentence "You will be able to post to the mailing-lists > by putting any of those addresses in Return-Path.". > > "Subscribers-only" posting is common on "interactive" mailing lists like > this one - technically inclined or not. So long as you're using a regular > mail program to send to the list, and you have your user profile set to the > address you subscribed with, you should be fine. > > > I agree that it’s unnecessary. I’ve removed the verbiage. > > > _______________________________________________ > clamav-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users > > > Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: > https://github.com/vrtadmin/clamav-faq > > http://www.clamav.net/contact.html#ml > _______________________________________________ > clamav-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users > > > Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: > https://github.com/vrtadmin/clamav-faq > > http://www.clamav.net/contact.html#ml > > _______________________________________________ > clamav-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users > > > Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: > https://github.com/vrtadmin/clamav-faq > > http://www.clamav.net/contact.html#ml _______________________________________________ clamav-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: https://github.com/vrtadmin/clamav-faq http://www.clamav.net/contact.html#ml
