[cctalk] Re: Rejected messages

[Grant Taylor via cctalk]

On 1/23/23 6:36 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
There's a chance that any existing Reply-To: is overwritten by the 
mailing list.  --  Maybe I should test that.  }:-)


It seems as if the list adds its' self to the Reply-To: header.

   "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" 



So it may be possible to remove that to artificially re-create an 
original Reply-To: header.


}:-)



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[cctalk] Re: Rejected messages

[Grant Taylor via cctalk]

On 1/23/23 1:50 AM, Christian Corti via cctalk wrote:

I've solved this problem with a simple procmail rule:


I did similar.


#
REPLYTO_=`formail -cXCc: | cut -d',' -f1 | sed -e 's/Cc: //' | sed -e 
's/\"/\\\"/g'`


0 fw
* ^To:.*classiccmp|^Cc:.*classiccmp
| sed -e 's/\[cctalk\] //g' | formail -i "From: $REPLYTO_" -i "Reply-To: 
ClassicCmp " -I "Cc:"

#


Thank you for sharing your rules.  I'm enhancing the rules that I had 
based on something that you're doing.


...
originalPoster=`formail -c -zxCc:`
...
|/path/to/formail -fb -i "From: $originalPoster" -i "List-Post: 
" -R Reply-To Old-Reply-To


N.B. the -z option removes leading and trailing whitespaces on fields 
extracted with -x.  So you can get /just/ the Cc: header's contents.


My only qualm about this is if the original poster posted with a 
Reply-To:.  I don't currently have logic in place to extract their 
Reply-To, if it exists, and preserve it.  But, I think I'll simply live 
with that bug for now.  There's a chance -- I've not looked -- that any 
existing Reply-To: is overwritten by the mailing list.  --  Maybe I 
should test that.  }:-)




--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[cctalk] Re: Rejected messages

[Tony Jones via cctalk]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 5:14 PM Grant Taylor via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> On 1/23/23 10:04 AM, Tony Jones via cctalk wrote:
> > The issue is that Gmail filtering isn't great at filtering the list,
> > the way it's setup.  A lot of people use it.  Clicking to block the
> > sender blocks the entire list.
>
> You bring up a valid concern, people filtering the entire list instead
> of a specific actual sender.  But I suspect that applies to many mailing
> lists.
>

No other list I'm a member of sets the headers this way.

Anything send from groups.io (which has a very nice MUTE topic feature) is:

From: actual email
Reply-To: list address
List-Id: list address

[cctalk] Re: Rejected messages

[Grant Taylor via cctalk]

On 1/23/23 10:04 AM, Tony Jones via cctalk wrote:
The issue is that Gmail filtering isn't great at filtering the list, 
the way it's setup.  A lot of people use it.  Clicking to block the 
sender blocks the entire list.


You bring up a valid concern, people filtering the entire list instead 
of a specific actual sender.  But I suspect that applies to many mailing 
lists.


Given contemporary email security measures (DMARC), it's neigh 
impossible for an intermediate mailing list to send an email address 
with the poster's email in the From: field.


Creating custom filters is somewhat in exact due to the odd way the 
listsrv is configured.


I suspect that many of us will agree that Gmail leaves a lot to be 
desired when compared to what more traditional MUAs can do.




--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[cctalk] Re: Rejected messages

[Tony Jones via cctalk]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 12:51 AM Christian Corti via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023, Tony Jones wrote:
> > No but I wish the list was configured differently so From: was the actual
> > sender with a Reply-To of the list. Plus of course ListId:
> >
> > Right now From: is "sender name via cc talk"  which isn't unique since
> some
> > people just have a first name. Plus a Cc: sender email
>
> I've solved this problem with a simple procmail rule:
>
> #
> REPLYTO_=`formail -cXCc: | cut -d',' -f1 | sed -e 's/Cc: //' | sed -e
> 's/\"/\\\"/g'`
>
> 0 fw
> * ^To:.*classiccmp|^Cc:.*classiccmp
> | sed -e 's/\[cctalk\] //g' | formail -i "From: $REPLYTO_" -i "Reply-To:
> ClassicCmp " -I "Cc:"
> #
>

The issue is that Gmail filtering isn't great at filtering the list, the
way it's setup.  A lot of people use it.  Clicking to block the sender
blocks the entire list.   Creating custom filters is somewhat in exact due
to the odd way the listsrv is configured.

Procmail, sure but 

>

[cctalk] Re: Rejected messages

[Christian Corti via cctalk]

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023, Tony Jones wrote:

No but I wish the list was configured differently so From: was the actual
sender with a Reply-To of the list. Plus of course ListId:

Right now From: is "sender name via cc talk"  which isn't unique since some
people just have a first name. Plus a Cc: sender email


I've solved this problem with a simple procmail rule:

#
REPLYTO_=`formail -cXCc: | cut -d',' -f1 | sed -e 's/Cc: //' | sed -e 
's/\"/\\\"/g'`

0 fw
* ^To:.*classiccmp|^Cc:.*classiccmp
| sed -e 's/\[cctalk\] //g' | formail -i "From: $REPLYTO_" -i "Reply-To: ClassicCmp 
" -I "Cc:"
#


Christian

[cctalk] Re: Rejected messages

[Angel M Alganza via cctalk]

On 2023-01-23 01:52, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:


On 1/22/23 19:29, Angel M Alganza via cctalk wrote:


This might be a very good thing for the list, if people start trimming 
quotes. Please don't try to un-toughen those cookies. :-)



Size had nothing to do with it.  Both of mine that were rejected were
trimmed down to just a couple lines.  The more likely effect is lose
of content.  I don't usually try a second time and only resent one of
those.  Could result in people not commenting even when their input
could be valuable.  Or even leaving.


I know size has nothing to do, but probably links or excessive 
formatting might contribute.  I still think that it'd be a good thing if 
quotes are trimmed and mail is better edited overall.  I'm nobody and my 
opinion isn't very relevant, but I try to read every message on the list 
as far as I can understand or, sadly sometimes, when I can't make sense 
of what's new or relevant on a thread anymore.  In those cases, I think 
we are better off without even receiving them, of course, IMO.


Ángel

[cctalk] Re: Rejected messages

[Bill Gunshannon via cctalk]

On 1/22/23 19:29, Angel M Alganza via cctalk wrote:

On 2023-01-22 23:50, Ali via cctalk wrote:


Since the switchover I am getting more and more of my messages
rejected as suspected SPAM.  Anyone else seeing this?


Same here bill. I contacted the new list owner and the response was 
pretty much tough cookies


This might be a very good thing for the list, if people start trimming 
quotes. Please don't try to un-toughen those cookies. :-)




Size had nothing to do with it.  Both of mine that were rejected were
trimmed down to just a couple lines.  The more likely effect is lose
of content.  I don't usually try a second time and only resent one of
those.  Could result in people not commenting even when their input
could be valuable.  Or even leaving.

bill

[cctalk] Re: Rejected messages

[Angel M Alganza via cctalk]

On 2023-01-22 23:50, Ali via cctalk wrote:


Since the switchover I am getting more and more of my messages
rejected as suspected SPAM.  Anyone else seeing this?


Same here bill. I contacted the new list owner and the response was 
pretty much tough cookies


This might be a very good thing for the list, if people start trimming 
quotes. Please don't try to un-toughen those cookies. :-)


Ángel

[cctalk] Re: Rejected messages

[Ali via cctalk]

> I'm glad I'm not the only one having rejections.  I noticed a resend
> tends to get it onto the list, which seems like a bogus filter (He's a
> spammer, DENY!... Um, he sent it again, I guess not, let it
> through...:-)
> 

Jim,

My understanding on this is that the filter is based on IP address so if your 
provider has a server name for their SMTP that maps to a number of IPs some 
could be blocked while others are not. Today, I must be on a "clean" IP! 

-Ali

[cctalk] Re: Rejected messages

[Jim Brain via cctalk]

On 1/22/2023 4:52 PM, Adrian Stoness via cctalk wrote:

We hear u loud and clear

On Sun., Jan. 22, 2023, 4:50 p.m. Ali via cctalk, 
wrote:


Since the switchover I am getting more and more of my messages
rejected as suspected SPAM.  Anyone else seeing this?

bill

Same here bill. I contacted the new list owner and the response was pretty
much tough cookies

-Ali

p.s. It would be interesting to see if this one makes it through! LOL.


I'm glad I'm not the only one having rejections.  I noticed a resend 
tends to get it onto the list, which seems like a bogus filter (He's a 
spammer, DENY!... Um, he sent it again, I guess not, let it through...:-)


Jim

--
Jim Brain
br...@jbrain.com
www.jbrain.com

[cctalk] Re: Rejected messages

[Adrian Stoness via cctalk]

We hear u loud and clear

On Sun., Jan. 22, 2023, 4:50 p.m. Ali via cctalk, 
wrote:

> > Since the switchover I am getting more and more of my messages
> > rejected as suspected SPAM.  Anyone else seeing this?
> >
> > bill
>
> Same here bill. I contacted the new list owner and the response was pretty
> much tough cookies
>
> -Ali
>
> p.s. It would be interesting to see if this one makes it through! LOL.
>
>

[cctalk] Re: Rejected messages

[Ali via cctalk]

> Since the switchover I am getting more and more of my messages
> rejected as suspected SPAM.  Anyone else seeing this?
> 
> bill

Same here bill. I contacted the new list owner and the response was pretty much 
tough cookies

-Ali

p.s. It would be interesting to see if this one makes it through! LOL.

[cctalk] Re: Rejected messages

[Tony Jones via cctalk]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 10:18 AM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

>
> Since the switchover I am getting more and more of my messages
> rejected as suspected SPAM.  Anyone else seeing this?
>

No but I wish the list was configured differently so From: was the actual
sender with a Reply-To of the list. Plus of course ListId:

Right now From: is "sender name via cc talk"  which isn't unique since some
people just have a first name. Plus a Cc: sender email

Makes blocking individual senders hard(er), at least on Gmail.