Send inn-workers mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/inn-workers
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of inn-workers digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: add "Auto-Submitted: auto-generated" to generated EMails?
(Russ Allbery)
2. Re: add "Auto-Submitted: auto-generated" to generated EMails?
(Grant Taylor)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2023 15:58:44 -0700
From: Russ Allbery <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: add "Auto-Submitted: auto-generated" to generated EMails?
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain
Grant Taylor <[email protected]> writes:
> On 3/12/23 1:29 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> This battle was lost years and years ago for most email. The majority
>> of email addresses used by regular people silently throw away messages.
> Let's agree to disagree.
Are you sure you want to disagree given your agreement below about Gmail?
25% of all email addresses in the world are hosted by Gmail, so if you
agree with me about Gmail, we're halfway to my assertion already. :) But
anyway, this is really somewhat beside the point.
>> Now, maybe this isn't true of moderators, who are probably odd, unusual
>> people compared to most email users. But also note that rejecting a
>> moderated group submission is in practice equivalent to silently
>> dropping it; the bounce message is unlikely to go anywhere useful
>> unless you have a particularly obsessive local news administrator.
> I don't know what the expected norm is for moderated newsgroups. With my
> postmaser hat on, I'd somewhat expect a message to go back to the
> purported poser indicating that their message had been rejected.
Use of fake email addresses on Usenet is ubiquitous, and those who don't
use them are often using providers with SPF or DMARC, so lifting the email
address of the poster into the envelope sender is a recipe for various
errors or straight-up rejection of messages due to DMARC rules or even
basic deliverability checks. Instead, messages normally have the local
newsmaster mailbox as the envelope sender, so that's where the bounces go.
(I believe that's the only thing INN supports, although I haven't looked
at it recently and maybe my memory is faulty.)
Maybe now that Usenet has become sort of a niche hobby some percentage of
newsmasters would look at that mailbox. Certainly a few years ago when
commercial providers were common, essentially no one bothered.
>> Out of curiosity, I checked, and only two moderators currently use
>> Gmail as a submission address (and I suspect those are both dead
>> groups; almost all moderated gorups are dead).
> /me winces
> Given Gmail's propensity to filter things, I suspect that moderated
> messages rarely make it into the moderator's mailboxes.
Exactly.
And while you and I may wince about the amount of mail that gets lost, I
spend enough time still talking to regular email users to be quite certain
that Gmail's behavior is basically what they want. They may get annoyed
around the edges, but they definitely would not tolerate the sort of spam
situation that I tolerate. I know even technical people who were used to
running their own mail servers who switched to Gmail and were amazed at
how much better the spam filtering was and how much they preferred losing
mail occasionally to having to deal with the spam. (Don't shoot the
messenger; I still run my own mail server.)
Again, moderators may be different. (They clearly are to some extent
given how few moderator submission addresses I found at Gmail, certainly
not 25%.) So maybe something that expects something different of the
email server could work.
> I feel like moderators are somewhat beholden to keeping their software
> relatively current to be able to do their function as a moderator.
Oh, good lord, no. This is not even remotely true. I haven't touched the
software that I use to moderate the groups I moderate in any substantial
way since maybe 2005.
Usenet really doesn't change very much.
> I also feel like there is room to do this on a per-moderated-newsgroup
> basis.
> I don't see the need for a Usenet wide flag day.
Which brings us back to my point in the original discussion: we need some
way to know which moderators are able to receive encapsulated messages and
change how they're sent messages based on that configuration.
--
Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Please send questions to the list rather than mailing me directly.
<https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/questions.html> explains why.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2023 17:43:36 -0600
From: Grant Taylor <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: add "Auto-Submitted: auto-generated" to generated EMails?
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
On 3/12/23 4:58 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Are you sure you want to disagree given your agreement below about
> Gmail? 25% of all email addresses in the world are hosted by Gmail,
> so if you agree with me about Gmail, we're halfway to my assertion
> already. :) But anyway, this is really somewhat beside the point.
I'm not ready to give up on email servers / addresses silently throwing
things away.
I still believe and strive for SMTP servers not /silently/ loosing an email.
I want to believe that if there wasn't an error, then the message made
it to the email address. Thus if it's not where the recipient expects
it to be, the problem is on the recipient's end.
> Use of fake email addresses on Usenet is ubiquitous, and those
> who don't use them are often using providers with SPF or DMARC, so
> lifting the email address of the poster into the envelope sender is a
> recipe for various errors or straight-up rejection of messages due to
> DMARC rules or even basic deliverability checks.
Agreed.
> Instead, messages normally have the local newsmaster mailbox as the
> envelope sender, so that's where the bounces go. (I believe that's
> the only thing INN supports, although I haven't looked at it recently
> and maybe my memory is faulty.)
Okay. So messages not approved by the moderator are likely to go back
to the newsmaster whom is almost certainly not the proper person.
> Maybe now that Usenet has become sort of a niche hobby some percentage
> of newsmasters would look at that mailbox. Certainly a few years
> ago when commercial providers were common, essentially no one bothered.
I was going to say that I check my newsmaster account the same way that
I check abuse and hostmaster accounts. Unfortunately while confirming
my newsmaster account, I found that it wasn't working. I've since fixed
that. Now all three accounts, newsmaster, abuse, and hostmaster land in
my inbox.
Aside: I see exceedingly little spam to abuse / hostmaster. I hope
newsmaster continues the trend.
> Exactly.
>
> And while you and I may wince about the amount of mail that gets lost,
> I spend enough time still talking to regular email users to be quite
> certain that Gmail's behavior is basically what they want.
I question the veracity of that. My doubt is with what I'm assuming is
innocent ignorance on most people's part not knowing that they should
expect better.
> They may get annoyed around the edges, but they definitely would not
> tolerate the sort of spam situation that I tolerate. I know even
> technical people who were used to running their own mail servers
> who switched to Gmail and were amazed at how much better the spam
> filtering was and how much they preferred losing mail occasionally
> to having to deal with the spam. (Don't shoot the messenger; I still
> run my own mail server.)
I understand the sentiment that you are talking about.
I guess I get remarkably little spam, especially considering the number
of addresses (multiple hundreds) that dump into a single account with
even more folders.
> Again, moderators may be different. (They clearly are to some extent
> given how few moderator submission addresses I found at Gmail,
> certainly not 25%.) So maybe something that expects something
> different of the email server could work.
:-)
> Oh, good lord, no. This is not even remotely true. I haven't touched
> the software that I use to moderate the groups I moderate in any
> substantial way since maybe 2005.
>
> Usenet really doesn't change very much.
Perhaps the schism is over my use of the word "current".
Does the software that you're using do it's job? Is it comparable to
the configuration that it needs to be compatible and interoperate with?
Would you fix it if you were aware of a problem? Especially if that
problem was preventing you from performing your function as a moderator?
> Which brings us back to my point in the original discussion:
> we need some way to know which moderators are able to receive
> encapsulated messages and change how they're sent messages based on
> that configuration.
I think at the very least it will require active concurrence with
moderators.
As such, I would think that it would be possible to do something on a
per recipient moderator basis, if not per moderated newsgroup.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4017 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL:
<https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/inn-workers/attachments/20230312/811b4e32/attachment-0001.bin>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
inn-workers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/inn-workers
------------------------------
End of inn-workers Digest, Vol 148, Issue 5
*******************************************
