Re: mail problem
On Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 01:12:02PM +0200, Nadav Har'El wrote: ORBS will list any open SMTP relay that uses other methods to protect from abuse (e.g. rate limiting). This is very true, and is the defence used by Netvision to explain their open relay. However it is still *my* prerogative to decide that I insist not to get mail from open relays, and therefor use ORBS. If you, Netvision, or anybody else feels there are hosts that are open relays but not spam risks, feel free to create a list ORTANSR (Open Relays That Are Not Spam Risks), or whatever, for that, and maybe I'll use that in my spam filter instead of ORBS. It is a matter of definition of open. ORBS maintainers claim that rate limit is not a defence against spam at all. However there were exactly zero incidents of spam relayed through Netvision gateway[1] once the measure was installed. Apparently other lists (RBL, etc) consider rate limiting as adequate protection. Some of them require that you submit rate limiting code for review. In my opinion ORBS position on rate limiting is a complete idiocy. And since there were less then 10 rejection from 150K+ outgoing email there is/was no reason why Netvision should suck up to them. [1] There was very small number of relay abuse before it. Netvision used relay protection based on checking From: field. This arrangement was discussed with and _approved_ by RBL maintainers on condition that Netvision will improve it if amount of abuse increases. P.S. I am _former_ Netvision sysadmin. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mail problem
Hi, Whenever an e-mail is sent to me i don't get it. I check in linux and i saw that all the mail that was delivered to me is gotten by a file name, which called "root".(its owner is "mail" user and it's in /var/local/mail directory). In the mail i c a message (and also the sent mail) that said: "Subject: Returned mail: Local configuration error Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure) . . . config error: mail loops back to me (MX problem?) 554 'my mail address'... Local configuration error" what doest it mean? and how do i repair this problem 10X Nir __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem -act2
I finally got hold of the person in charge of /etc/sendmail.cf After I explained the problem (again! ) he said Great, then there's no problem because everything works just like it should. Internally, there's no reason to use the fully qualified domain name. At this point I see no other option than to complain to my department. I find the idea of complaining against a sysadmin very distressful. Can anyone suggest a better alternative? Thanks a bunch Dorit = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem -act2
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, dorit ben shalom wrote: BGU is firewalling some stuff, and there is no problem with that. --Ariel It seems bgumail is blocking both traceroute and ping (while allowing telnet and ftp). Is there any way to talk some sense into them? Thanks Dorit = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Ariel Biener e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work phone: 03-640608 fingerprint = 07 D1 E5 3E EF 6D E5 82 0B E9 21 D4 3C 7D 8B BC = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem (recreating original error)
This, of course, shows that xerox.com is blocking email from addresses in the DUL. The cause for confusion here is that YOUR machine seemed to believe that it was mail.netvision.net.il, and thus the bounce you received was from [EMAIL PROTECTED] To wit, notice the headers from your message which bounced: Received: (from doritb@localhost) by mail.netvision.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA00693 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:52:06 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:52:06 -0500 Compare these to the headers from your current message: Received: from dialup.netvision.net.il (IDENT:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [62.0.180.41]) by mailgw1.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA06790 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 03:47:57 +0200 (IST) Received: from netvision.net.il (doritb@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dialup.netvision.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA00898 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:04:39 -0500 Notice that they are both running the same version of Sendmail in the same timezone, whereas the actual NetVision hosts are running a different version of Sendmail in a different timezone. So, DUL issues aside, I suggest that your machine is somehow misconfigured. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem (recreating original error)
The cause for confusion here is that YOUR machine seemed to believe that it was mail.netvision.net.il, and thus the bounce you received was from [EMAIL PROTECTED] I know. This is what I used to do in the bad old days before ILUG enlightened me about smart hosts :) But IMHO all this is besides the point. I re-created the error to argue against the argument that DUL is mecessary so that 'message undeliverable' messages get relayed back: The DUL message _is_ a type of 'message undeliverable' message, and it _did_ get relayed. Am I missing something? Dorit = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem (recreating original error)
The cause for confusion here is that YOUR machine seemed to believe that it was mail.netvision.net.il, and thus the bounce you received was from [EMAIL PROTECTED] I know. This is what I used to do in the bad old days before ILUG enlightened me about smart hosts :) But IMHO all this is besides the point. I re-created the error to argue against the argument that DUL is mecessary so that 'message undeliverable' messages get relayed back: The DUL message _is_ a type of 'message undeliverable' message, and it _did_ get relayed. Am I missing something? Dorit = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem -act2
It seems bgumail is blocking both traceroute and ping (while allowing telnet and ftp). Is there any way to talk some sense into them? Thanks Dorit = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem -act2
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 12 04:53:12 1999 Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from alpha.netvision.net.il (alpha.netvision.net.il [194.90.1.13]) by bgumail.bgu.ac.il (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA07328 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 04:53:11 +0200 (IST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from mail.netvision.net.il (RAS7-p9.jlm.netvision.net.il [62.0.165.9]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.8.6) with ESMTP id EAA27501; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 04:52:32 +0200 (IST) Received: (from doritb@localhost) by mail.netvision.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA01645; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:06:22 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:06:22 -0500 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Status: RO I can avoid using most of bgumail, but there are local maillists I need to be on. I need to subscribe to them from bgumail. Right now, that's often impossible because of the domainname problem I posted to ILUG. What do I do if I can't convince the sysadmin to set the D flag in /etc/sendmail.cf Thanks Dorit
Re: mail problem
I'm lagging behind the list, as usual. Quoth Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo on Thu, Nov 04, 1999: OS There are several other reasons to that, mainly is the fact that you don't OS want replies to go to dialup-XXX.CITY.netvision.net.il .. What's the connection? You get replies basing on your message's headers, not on your IP. Yes, but you get bounces to your envelope sender address, which _could_ be a problem (it depends on your MUA and MTA). Vadik. -- Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, they are quick to anger and have no need for subtlety. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem
Quoth Oleg Goldshmidt on Thu, Nov 04, 1999: Or Sagi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There are several other reasons to that, mainly is the fact that you don't want replies to go to dialup-XXX.CITY.netvision.net.il .. So set you Reply-To header properly. Duh. That's not the point, is it? First, there are situations where your Reply-To: header gets mangled (misconfigured mailing lists). Second, there are situations where your From: header matters (mailing lists with gentle loving caring owners such as me). Third, From: header has some meaning. Fourth, the point is also to change the envelope sender (SMTP MAIL FROM:). Vadik. -- Bell Labs Unix -- Reach out and grep someone. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem
Nadav Har'El wrote: hours in the mail queue waiting to be sent. Anyway, when you send email directly from your dynamic IP, and the remote server does not answer, what do you do? You shouldn't give up, because the server may be temporarily .. The solution is to queue the mail and try again the next time you connect. Really? This is not an acceptable solution to me, and probably not to most people. I don't want to have to wait until the next time I log in (maybe only a day later) for the message to be sent! Of course, if someone deliberately *wants* to do that, then it's his choice, but at least don't tell me it's a useful thing to do :) In a world using the DUL, it would no longer be ``his choice''. Organizations should have a permanent and well-known IP, not one listed on DUL, which is exactly what the DUL phylosophy is: mailers should be accountable, and not completely anonymous. This is really poorly defined. 1) What's a ``mailer''? There are SMTP senders and there are SMTP receivers, and they are not always equal. 2) What's ``accountable''? Dynamic IP addresses for e.g. ISDN connected outfits can be first class Internet citizens for the duration of their connection by utilizing dynamic DNS. In such a configuration, incoming mail for such an outfit would be received at a directly connected host advertised via MX, and the queue would be drained when the outfit's mail host gets connected to the network (e.g. using ETRN). That aside, I find your point pretty upsetting. Configurations such as I describe are possible, in use where current technology allows, and otherwise are in demand. There are Internet Drafts dealing with exactly these issues. This was the also the case before the DUL; i.e. there is no technical argument as to why these setups are wrong. The DUL breaks such setups, and possibly others. And your justification is that this is ok, because organizations should not have IP addresses listed in the DUL? That's circular reasoning. ``The DUL says so'' is not a convincing argument. It means that if you choose to be anonymous, you're welcome to be on the Internet, but not to send *me* mail, because someone who sends *me* anonyumous mail is most likely a spammer. It's my choice to think that way and use DUL, and it may be your choice not to think that way, and continue to get a dozen spams per day. I'm not trying to convince YOU of anything. Had I been doing that, it wouldn't have been in a public forum. I'm trying to show that the DUL, as a technology to deal with spam, is broken and a bad design which -- if it becomes widely spread -- may impede the development of the Internet. This is bad. I know of people who reject any email with Hotmail, Yahoo, etc. addresses. It greatly reduces the amount of spam they send. Do you believe that this is a proper solution to spam? Would you advocate it? I hope not; it may be useful to one individual or another, but IT DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM. Neither does the DUL. As a sidenote, I use DUL,RBL,and ORBS for some time now and keep all discarded messages for research, and I never had a non-spam message discarded because of DUL - I.e., nobody ever seems to have sent me a message from a dailup-line without going through their ISP's SMTP server. So DUL false-positives are not as bad or as common as you make them sound. Uh, that's not very scientific. Do you usually make conclusions based on one data point? It's a nice touch using my own words agains me :) There's an important difference between Netvision and a government: if you feel Netvision's policies are too restrictive, you're free to use another ISP who doesn't block port 25. On the other hand, If you feel Israel's policies are too restrictive then, well, you're out of luck... Where would I go in a world where everyone blocked port 25? This is similar to the following: in a country with free speach, you're free to create your own newspaper, perhaps even by photocopying it yourself and delivering it to your subscribers. However, free speach does not imply that if you want to write something in, say, Yediot Achronot, then they *have* to let you write it there. They may charge you for it, place limits on it, or whatever they feel like. If you feel they are too restrictive, go to Maariv or open your own newspaper as described above. I really don't want to get into THIS. So think for yourself; if what you say is true, how exactly do you explain the brouhaha that happened when HADASHOT was closed? With all the Nimrodi scandals? We live in a world where NOT everyone can publish a newspaper. It is therefore the public's right (and duty) to protest when its watch dogs become corrupt, or when pluralism is at risk. Of course if the limits are arbitrary and too restrictive, the clients should protest to the ISP and threaten to leave. If all ISPs form a cartel and put limits
Re: mail problem
Quoth Dorit Ben-Shalom on Thu, Nov 04, 1999: It's not just that the headers mention netvision. The rejected letter _comes_ from netvision: From: Mail Delivery Subsystem [EMAIL PROTECTED] :) Which does not mean that the _error_ was generated by Netvision's mail server. It could be generated by the machine that mail.netvision.net.il talked to and spit back via SMTP. Vadik. -- Taunt not the sysadmin, for he can become you and make your life interesting. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem
Quoth Nadav Har'El on Sat, Nov 06, 1999: If the message is coming from an IP of a known spammer company, then this is easy: we'll just junk the message. This is RBL: RBL (Realtime Blackhole List) is a list of IPs of networks belonging to known spammers, or networks known for actively helping or harboring spammers. Now, spammers know people are using RBL, so to hide their identity, instead of sending you the message directly they send it through a misconfigured mail server somewhere on the internet which allows "relaying" to anybody. Wrong. RBL also lists open relays. Vadik. -- It was state of the art, he said. The art in this case was probably pottery. -- Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, "Good Omens" = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem
Which does not mean that the _error_ was generated by Netvision's mail server. It could be generated by the machine that mail.netvision.net.il talked to and spit back via SMTP. Yes. But my point was in the DUL context: If the _DUL_ error was spat to me, then, in pricnciple, other 'non deliverable' errors could too, so the 'lose underlivearble' argument for putting dynamic connections on DUL doesn't seem to me very strong :) Please correct me if I am wrong Dorit = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem
Quoth Dorit Ben-Shalom on Wed, Nov 10, 1999: Which does not mean that the _error_ was generated by Netvision's mail server. It could be generated by the machine that mail.netvision.net.il talked to and spit back via SMTP. Yes. But my point was in the DUL context: If the _DUL_ error was spat to me, The question is who spit the error. If you have the complete error message, and you see something like "The remote mailer said" in the message, that means that it was not Netvision responsible for spitting the error. then, in pricnciple, other 'non deliverable' errors could too, so the 'lose underlivearble' argument for putting dynamic connections on DUL doesn't seem to me very strong :) Netvision should have put its own dialup IPs in the "relay no matter what" list. Vadik. -- Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. -- Ford Prefect = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem (recreating original error)
From doritb Wed Nov 10 17:52:16 1999 Return-Path: MAILER-DAEMON Received: from localhost (localhost) by mail.netvision.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) with internal id RAA00695; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:52:15 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:52:15 -0500 From: Mail Delivery Subsystem [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status; boundary="RAA00695.942274335/mail.netvision.net.il" Subject: Returned mail: Service unavailable Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure) Status: R This is a MIME-encapsulated message --RAA00695.942274335/mail.netvision.net.il The original message was received at Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:52:06 -0500 from doritb@localhost - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Transcript of session follows - .. while talking to mailer-east.xerox.com.: MAIL From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 Mail from 62.0.180.223 rejected - dul;see http://maps.vix.com/dul 554 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Service unavailable --RAA00695.942274335/mail.netvision.net.il Content-Type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns; mail.netvision.net.il Arrival-Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:52:06 -0500 Final-Recipient: RFC822; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 Remote-MTA: DNS; mailer-east.xerox.com Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 Mail from 62.0.180.223 rejected - dul;see http://maps.vix.com/dul Last-Attempt-Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:52:15 -0500 --RAA00695.942274335/mail.netvision.net.il Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: doritb Received: (from doritb@localhost) by mail.netvision.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA00693 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:52:06 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:52:06 -0500 From: doritb Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: test4 Hi Livia My new friends at ILUG asked me to test this message :) Love Dorit --RAA00695.942274335/mail.netvision.net.il--
Re: mail problem
Actually, it's more of a philosophical question; the MAPS RBL only lists IP addresses which are associated with `hard' network abusers, e.g. bulk friendly ISPs, etc. So sites choosing to block traffic (or SMTP) from IP addresses listed on the RBL know fairly well that they won't lose real email. Not necessarily true -- bulk friendly ISPs can also have legitimate customers. I think you're wrong there. In spam-fighter lingo, a ``bulk friendly ISP'' is an ISP willing to tolerate its users sending unsolicited bulk email, which is one of the more common definitions for spam. (Although not all spam fighters agree on that definition.) The RBL lists such ISPs, if they have shown that they will tolerate customers who use their infrastructure to abuse the net. Web hosting outfits that host pages for spammers and refuse to remove them are also listed on the RBL, and I'm sure they have ``legitimate'' customers as well. The whole point of the RBL is to show pro-spam outfits that being pro-spam HURTS. The idea is that when the non-spamming customers notice that they've lost connectivity to large parts of the net, they will pressure the outfit to get out of the RBL. (Either explicitly or implicitly, by switching ISPs.) Getting out of the RBL means showing MAPS that the ISP no longer tolerates spammers. This is exactly why it is so HARD for an outfit to get on the RBL. The RBL is not as much a mechanism to protect your mailbox as it is an attempt to STOP spam. Spamming outfits don't get plonked into the RBL immediately; only after education attempts fail and an outfit is proven to be totally rogue will it be listed in the RBL. So when everyone and their wristwatch have their own IPv6 addresses we can stop using it. (For whatever reason.) It's wrong to force users to use their ISP's mail hubs, but having your mail server crumble under the load of spam isn't exactly right either, so each administrator decides on some compromise. I don't use either of these three systems, but I don't get a lot of spam. For some people it's better even to reject a legitimate e-mail once in a long while than to be unable to read it anyway because of all the spam. The right solution, IMHO, it to complain. Spam can be stopped if people complain. Otherwise, with all the black lists and filters in the world, you're just burying your head in the sand. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem
Adam Morrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not necessarily true -- bulk friendly ISPs can also have legitimate customers. I think you're wrong there. In spam-fighter lingo, a ``bulk friendly ISP'' is an ISP willing to tolerate its users sending unsolicited bulk email, which is one of the more common definitions for spam. (Although not all spam fighters agree on that definition.) What about solicited bulk email? A customer may quite legitimately send bulk emails to a gazillion people who specifically requested them. A non-commercial example: what if I run a mailing list on my computer and am connected through an ISP? Just about any good thing in this world can be abused. The fact that there are people who abuse good ideas (good technology, good anything) shouldn't lead to prevention of legitimate use of the ideas (technology, etc). IMHO. IIRC this thread started from an email blocked by Netvision, and then the fact (?) that Netvision was blacklisted for being "bulk-friendly" by (at least) one of the antispam engines was mentioned. Well, I have complained a couple of times to netvision about spam, and one of the complaints at least went like "look, I don't know where the bastards come from, I can't trace them myself, you are my ISP, please investigate it and do something about it." What do you know? Within 20 minutes I got an email informing me that the bastards had been blocked. Most big ISPs (e.g. AOL) will automatically acknowledge a spam complaint, but won't tell you what, if anything, they did about it. So maybe there was something inappropriate in that Netvision told me what they did, but I don't see what, I have not used the information in any way (I am using it right now, telling you about the case ;), and who cares - I am satisfied. Think about really bad cases - being spammed by an ISP, for instance. For quite some time I was being spammed by GeoCities (not a GeoCities account - the GeoCities themselves). Whom do you complain to about this? I complained to GeoCities many times, they never as much as acknowledged my emails. It stopped only after GeoCities were bought up. ;-) After I have elaborated on the issue, let me remind you that it has grown off-topic (though ISPs and spam are important topics indeed). -- Oleg Goldshmidt | BLOOMBERG L.P. (BFM) | [EMAIL PROTECTED] "A sense of the fundamental decencies is parceled out unequally at birth." [F. Scott FitzGerald] = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem
that isn't what always happens. Theoretically, users of the DUL accept the fact that they won't receive email from dynamic IP addresses. But, as we've just seen, not all dynamic IP users are spammers. I think the DUL is an inferior solution. Who says dynamic IP email is bad? What Someone has already posted here the correct explanation for why dynamic IP email *IS* bad, even when not considering the spam accountability issues described above: it is very often the case that remote mail servers suffer from lapses of inavailability: either because of network connectivity problems, because of shutdowns, and so on. Mailing list administrators are well aware of the fact, and you usually see messages hanging around for hours in the mail queue waiting to be sent. Anyway, when you send email directly from your dynamic IP, and the remote server does not answer, what do you do? You shouldn't give up, because the server may be temporarily down, but you can't retry later because the user may disconnect the connection to the ISP in a minute! The solution is to send the message through your ISP's server, which is connected to the Internet 24/7. The solution is to queue the mail and try again the next time you connect. I'm obviously not suggesting that every end-user send their mail directly from their node. But there is no technical reason NOT to do so, and moderately sophisticated users -- not to mention non directly connected organizations -- often choose do it. The DUL philosophy implies that doing this is in some way wrong, which is nonsense. will happen with IPv6? I also think that it's wrong to force users to use their ISP's mail hub. (Or worse; invisibly redirect SMTP traffic to that host.) What does IPv6 have to do with these issues? IPv6 addresses obtained using stateless address autoconfiguration are as anonymous as dynamic IPv4 address. Should they be blacklisted as well? That sort of defeats the purpose for one the IPv6 design goals. Blocking direct port-25 traffic is a very interesting anti-spam measure that I haven't seen implemented before, and while it may sound "bad" and anti-freedom, I can't see what harm it can actually do to "normal" users, not spammers. It does not just ``sound "bad" anti-freedom''; it IS. ... forcing law-abiding citizens a method of communication between themselves is completely contradictory to the freedom of speech principle. Sound familiar? It's an excerpt from message [EMAIL PROTECTED] which you sent to this list with regards to the Israeli encryption laws as you perceived them. I see absolutely no difference between that, and forcing people to go through an ISP's smarthost for mail. will get listed. The ORBS database also lists some hosts which relay mail only for e.g. the ORBS test machine, and so are NOT really a risk to the Internet. Sites using the ORBS database implicitly choose not This is not true. It is true. Have you any evidence that the ORBS testing methodology can discern whether a host is relaying just for them, or for the entire world? A machine cannot "accidentally" relay mail only for ORBS's test machines, and not to any other machine on the Internet. How can this happen??? Did I say ``accidentally''? I can configure my machine to relay mail only when that mail is submitted by the ORBS testing machine, in order to demonstrate that the ORBS technology is broken. My machine will get listed in the ORBS database, although it isn't a risk to the rest of the net. Btw, this has been done, and that machine got listed in the ORBS database. There's a different issue, of second-hand relaying, e.g., some ISP may have a client using their mail server (smarthost) and that client's mail server has an open relay: but this issue is solvable too if the ISP cared to solve it. It is the fact, that the ISP's smarthost is NOT an open to third-party relay. ORBS will still list it. (Though they now give the ISP some time to fix the problem before listing them.) ORBS has also listed ISPs who failed to receive their warning message because the ORBS robot sent it to the incorrect address. ORBS will list any open SMTP relay that uses other methods to protect from abuse (e.g. rate limiting). ORBS is as broken as the DUL, if for different reasons. (Btw, there are convincing arguments that the ORBS testing essentially amounts to spamming.) = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem
In spam-fighter lingo, a ``bulk friendly ISP'' is an ISP willing to tolerate its users sending unsolicited bulk email, which is one of the more common definitions for spam. (Although not all spam fighters agree on that definition.) What about solicited bulk email? A customer may quite legitimately send bulk emails to a gazillion people who specifically requested them. A non-commercial example: what if I run a mailing list on my computer and am connected through an ISP? Yeah, so? I said ``unsolicited bulk email''. I didn't say that mailing lists were bad. Just about any good thing in this world can be abused. The fact that there are people who abuse good ideas (good technology, good anything) shouldn't lead to prevention of legitimate use of the ideas (technology, etc). IMHO. That's sad but true, which is why if you run a mailing list and don't take the basic precautions to protect yourself from abuse then you're part of the problem. FWIW, outfits that run more traditional mailing lists (i.e., periodical newsletters telling you about their latest cool stuff) are considered to be spammers if they don't specifically request permission from people to send them email. Think about really bad cases - being spammed by an ISP, for instance. For quite some time I was being spammed by GeoCities (not a GeoCities account - the GeoCities themselves). Whom do you complain to about this? I complained to GeoCities many times, they never as much as acknowledged my emails. It stopped only after GeoCities were bought up. ;-) The question is, did they keep spamming you while you were complaining? Merely lack of response is not a crime, as long as the spam stops. Otherwise, it's a case for an RBL nomination. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem
I know I am missing something, but being a novice, I feel it is OK to ask. I understand that when I route my mail through my IPS smarthost, I can get 'undeliverable messages' warning etc sent to me through the smarthost. But remember that my original DUL rejection (the one which started this whole thread :) was sent back to me through my ISP too. Doesn't that mean that I could get 'underliverable messages' from my ISP regardless of whether I route through the smarthost or not? Thanks for your patience Dorit = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem -act2
dorit ben shalom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As a staff member in one of Isreal's universities, snip The people in charge are less than happy to touch the file. Any work arounds? Are there any Israeli universities left with no sysadmin on this list? ;-) -- Oleg Goldshmidt | BLOOMBERG L.P. (BFM) | [EMAIL PROTECTED] "A sense of the fundamental decencies is parceled out unequally at birth." [F. Scott FitzGerald] = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem -act2
On Sun, 7 Nov 1999, dorit ben shalom wrote: What university are we talking about ? --Ariel As a staff member in one of Isreal's universities, I also have an account on that university's misguided mail server. I need to set the /etc/sendmail.cf Dj flag on that machine too. The people in charge are less than happy to touch the file. Any work arounds? Thanks Dorit = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Ariel Biener e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work phone: 03-640608 fingerprint = 07 D1 E5 3E EF 6D E5 82 0B E9 21 D4 3C 7D 8B BC = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem -act2
bgu :( = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem -act2
Do you think that there is a correlation between the fact that no one has stepped up so far, and the fact that bgumail looks the way it looks :) = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem -act2
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Dorit Ben-Shalom wrote: I don't know if any BGU sysadmin is on this list. --Ariel Do you think that there is a correlation between the fact that no one has stepped up so far, and the fact that bgumail looks the way it looks:) -- Ariel Biener e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work phone: 03-640608 fingerprint = 07 D1 E5 3E EF 6D E5 82 0B E9 21 D4 3C 7D 8B BC = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mail problem -act2
As a staff member in one of Isreal's universities, I also have an account on that university's misguided mail server. I need to set the /etc/sendmail.cf Dj flag on that machine too. The people in charge are less than happy to touch the file. Any work arounds? Thanks Dorit = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem
Just like MAPS RBL and MAPS ORBS. ORBS is not related to MAPS. You just choose which level of spam protection you want on your mail server. For low risk you can do none or just MAPS RBL, if you want more protection you can use ORBS, and if you're really desparate you also use DUL. You're sending e-mails directly from your dialup-line because *most* hosts aren't desparate enough to use DUL. Some are, though, so you better configure your mailer to use your ISP's mail relay. Actually, it's more of a philosophical question; the MAPS RBL only lists IP addresses which are associated with `hard' network abusers, e.g. bulk friendly ISPs, etc. So sites choosing to block traffic (or SMTP) from IP addresses listed on the RBL know fairly well that they won't lose real email. The DUL lists dynamically assigned IP addresses. It's supposed to list only address blocks which were submitted to MAPS by their owner, but that isn't what always happens. Theoretically, users of the DUL accept the fact that they won't receive email from dynamic IP addresses. But, as we've just seen, not all dynamic IP users are spammers. I think the DUL is an inferior solution. Who says dynamic IP email is bad? What will happen with IPv6? I also think that it's wrong to force users to use their ISP's mail hub. (Or worse; invisibly redirect SMTP traffic to that host.) Lastly, the ORBS database lists open SMTP relays. Even if a relay has never been used for net abuse purposes but ORBS finds out about it, it will get listed. The ORBS database also lists some hosts which relay mail only for e.g. the ORBS test machine, and so are NOT really a risk to the Internet. Sites using the ORBS database implicitly choose not to receive email from such hosts, and thus can lose mail. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, dorit ben shalom wrote: Hi guys I am experimenting with sending mail from my own machine (instead of telneting someplace and sending there). My mail is being blocked by the following program: http://maps.vix.com/dul/enduser.htm If you appear in the RBL maps, you are being blocked for spamming. What exactly did you do for this ... testing ? --Ariel What can I do? Dorit PS I apologize for sending this message to the list. I know I can in principle ask my ISP (netvision) about this, but when was the last time you tried to explain to their tech support that you are a stand-alone linux user on a subnotebook who can only use command lines? = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Ariel Biener e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work phone: 03-640608 fingerprint = 07 D1 E5 3E EF 6D E5 82 0B E9 21 D4 3C 7D 8B BC = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem
On Sat, Nov 06, 1999, Adam Morrison wrote about "Re: mail problem": Just like MAPS RBL and MAPS ORBS. Actually, it's more of a philosophical question; the MAPS RBL only lists IP addresses which are associated with `hard' network abusers, .. This may be a bit off-topic for linux-il, but since people already started talking about this subject, and as a user of ORBS, RBL and DUL (as well as RSS) to fight spam, I'd like to clarify the ideas behind using *all* three lists as a 3-tiered defence against spam. The idea is that we want to know if the person who sent us the message is a spammer (in which case we want to junk the message), AND we don't want him to fooling us by conceiling his identity. If the message is coming from an IP of a known spammer company, then this is easy: we'll just junk the message. This is RBL: RBL (Realtime Blackhole List) is a list of IPs of networks belonging to known spammers, or networks known for actively helping or harboring spammers. Now, spammers know people are using RBL, so to hide their identity, instead of sending you the message directly they send it through a misconfigured mail server somewhere on the internet which allows "relaying" to anybody. Properly-configured servers should not allow such relaying. Another reason spammers are using open relays is cost-shifting: if they can get other people's servers to send out thousands of messages without an cost to them, it makes them happier. The ORBS list (www.orbs.org, Open Relay Blackhole Service?) is a list of servers that are known to allow such "open relaying", and thus email from them may be untracable and may be spam. Participating users or systems may refuse email from systems listed on ORBS, but typically there are a few false positives (legitimate mail is coming from a open-relay system because that ISP didn't bother fixing their configuration), so it is recommended to have a list of people that you always want to get mail from. Some Israeli ISPs, like Netvision and Kavey Zahav (or whatever their name is now) are NOTORIOUS for trying to cheat ORBS' robots because they feel they can't be bothered with properly configuring their servers (but ORBS know they're being cheated, and added these 2 ISPs permanently to their list). I personally emailed these ISPs myself about the issue, but they wouldn't listen - apprently they don't care that email from their clients is being refused around the world, or that they are getting bad publicity (I'm getting spam delivered through ftp.netvision.net.il at least once a week). Anyway, once spammers realise that people have started using ORBS (or RSS), they tried another method: getting a cheap Internet account from some ISP, log into it, and run the spam program on that dialup IP line - sending spam directly from it. What we'd rather have them do is to use their ISP's mail server for relaying the spam. Why?? Because this gives their ISP two chances to fight them: 1) ISPs can implement limits on their relays to prevent to many messages being sent from a given IP at a certain interval, for example 2) ISPs can claim this is a misuse of *their* server (if it is specified in the contract) and sue the spammers. So, if we don't let spammers send mail from Dialup IPs, we're giving the ISPs ammunitions to fight the spammers that are abusing them. If these ISPs choose not to fight the spammers on using their services, then this is fine, but such an ISP will find itself on the RBL list (see above). To summarize, the 3-tiered blacklisting is not about 3 levels of "confidence": only using these 3 together will let us make spammers and spam-friendly system administrators accountable for their actions. that isn't what always happens. Theoretically, users of the DUL accept the fact that they won't receive email from dynamic IP addresses. But, as we've just seen, not all dynamic IP users are spammers. I think the DUL is an inferior solution. Who says dynamic IP email is bad? What Someone has already posted here the correct explanation for why dynamic IP email *IS* bad, even when not considering the spam accountability issues described above: it is very often the case that remote mail servers suffer from lapses of inavailability: either because of network connectivity problems, because of shutdowns, and so on. Mailing list administrators are well aware of the fact, and you usually see messages hanging around for hours in the mail queue waiting to be sent. Anyway, when you send email directly from your dynamic IP, and the remote server does not answer, what do you do? You shouldn't give up, because the server may be temporarily down, but you can't retry later because the user may disconnect the connection to the ISP in a minute! The solution is to send the message through your ISP's server, which is connected to the Internet 24/7. will happen with IPv6? I also think that it's wrong to force users to use their ISP's mail hub. (O
Re: mail problem
On Sat, Nov 06, 1999 at 03:11:53PM +0200, Adam Morrison wrote: Just like MAPS RBL and MAPS ORBS. ORBS is not related to MAPS. Thanks for the correction. You just choose which level of spam protection you want on your mail server. For low risk you can do none or just MAPS RBL, if you want more protection you can use ORBS, and if you're really desparate you also use DUL. You're sending e-mails directly from your dialup-line because *most* hosts aren't desparate enough to use DUL. Some are, though, so you better configure your mailer to use your ISP's mail relay. Actually, it's more of a philosophical question; the MAPS RBL only lists IP addresses which are associated with `hard' network abusers, e.g. bulk friendly ISPs, etc. So sites choosing to block traffic (or SMTP) from IP addresses listed on the RBL know fairly well that they won't lose real email. Not necessarily true -- bulk friendly ISPs can also have legitimate customers. The DUL lists dynamically assigned IP addresses. It's supposed to list only address blocks which were submitted to MAPS by their owner, but that isn't what always happens. Theoretically, users of the DUL accept the fact that they won't receive email from dynamic IP addresses. But, as we've just seen, not all dynamic IP users are spammers. I think the DUL is an inferior solution. Who says dynamic IP email is bad? What will happen with IPv6? I also think that it's wrong to force users to use their ISP's mail hub. (Or worse; invisibly redirect SMTP traffic to that host.) So when everyone and their wristwatch have their own IPv6 addresses we can stop using it. (For whatever reason.) It's wrong to force users to use their ISP's mail hubs, but having your mail server crumble under the load of spam isn't exactly right either, so each administrator decides on some compromise. I don't use either of these three systems, but I don't get a lot of spam. For some people it's better even to reject a legitimate e-mail once in a long while than to be unable to read it anyway because of all the spam. -- Alex Shnitman| http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] +--- http://alexsh.hectic.netUIN 188956PGP key on web page E1 F2 7B 6C A0 31 80 28 63 B8 02 BA 65 C7 8B BA Recent case studies (the Internet) provide very dramatic evidence ... that commercial quality can be achieved / exceeded by Open Source projects. -- Internal Microsoft memo PGP signature
Re: mail problem
Sorry for my ignorance, but if I route my mail through the ISP gateway, does it necessarily solve the 'remote server not answer' problem? Thanks again Dorit = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tracking customizations (was: mail problem (summary))
dorit ben shalom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (I like keeping all my modified rc and cf files at the user level so I don't need to copy more than my home directory when re-intsalling system etc) There are too many customizations that you can do to your linux system to avoid tinkering with /etc. With minimal discipline, your personal stuff, including configuration changes, can be kept confined to /etc, /usr/local, and /home. The latter two can be kept on separate partitions, so that when you re-install/upgrade they won't be mangled (hopefully). Even if there is some weird trick to keep /etc on a separate partition (not likely), it is probably not a good idea. I (try to) keep all my configuration files (e.g. sendmail.mc) under CVS control, and I keep the repository in /usr/local. Therefore, even if I install a new system on the root partition, it will be a simple matter to restore my configuration files. As a matter of fact, I (try to) keep _all_ my stuff under CVS control, so the repository is virtually the only thing I need to backup. Needless to say, if I screw something up recovery is usually transparent. This is cc-ed to the list in the hope that some find it useful and others make suggestions for improvement. -- Oleg Goldshmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] BLOOMBERG L.P. (BFM) [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Life's not fair, but the root password helps." [S. Travaglia] = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem
Ok, here goes. the MAPS project is an attempt to reduce the amount of spam. As to why you encountered this error --- Dial-up users aren't ``supposed'' to send email _directly_ from their (dynamic) connection. There are several other reasons to that, mainly is the fact that you don't want replies to go to dialup-XXX.CITY.netvision.net.il .. You're supposed to relay all of your outgoing messages through your ISP's mail server (usually mail.ISP). You'll have to tell us more about your configuration in order for us to be able to help. Regards, Ors. On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, dorit ben shalom wrote: Hi guys I am experimenting with sending mail from my own machine (instead of telneting someplace and sending there). My mail is being blocked by the following program: http://maps.vix.com/dul/enduser.htm What can I do? Dorit PS I apologize for sending this message to the list. I know I can in principle ask my ISP (netvision) about this, but when was the last time you tried to explain to their tech support that you are a stand-alone linux user on a subnotebook who can only use command lines? = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 07:29:31AM -0500, dorit ben shalom wrote: I am experimenting with sending mail from my own machine (instead of telneting someplace and sending there). My mail is being blocked by the following program: http://maps.vix.com/dul/enduser.htm What can I do? You should configure your mailer to relay all the mail through mailgw.netvision.net.il. Which mailer are you using? -- Alex Shnitman| http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] +--- http://alexsh.hectic.netUIN 188956PGP key on web page E1 F2 7B 6C A0 31 80 28 63 B8 02 BA 65 C7 8B BA "I think there is a world market for about five computers." -- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943 PGP signature
Re: mail problem
Point out to them that your mailer (sendmail or whatever) did its job properly (passed the buck to them), and they should be able to determine how it got to MAPS? I will try. Linux and command lines is usually too much for most of them. Plus, I tired of hearing how rare it is for a girl to use linux. Thanks again Dorit = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 04:18:49PM +0200, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote: Ok, here goes. the MAPS project is an attempt to reduce the amount of spam. As to why you encountered this error --- Dial-up users aren't ``supposed'' to send email _directly_ from their (dynamic) connection. What do you mean? I do it all the time. You can generally do it, but many sites use the MAPS DUL system to block such mails (because spammers often use this capability to send mass e-mails and escape liability with the ISP, because they don't touch the ISP's mail server this way). -- Alex Shnitman| http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] +--- http://alexsh.hectic.netUIN 188956PGP key on web page E1 F2 7B 6C A0 31 80 28 63 B8 02 BA 65 C7 8B BA The ability of the Open Source process to collect and harness the collective IQ of thousands of individuals across the Internet is simply amazing. More importantly, Open Source evangelization scales with the size of the Internet much faster than our own evangelization efforts appear to scale. -- Internal Microsoft memo PGP signature
Re: mail problem
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo wrote: OS spam. As to why you encountered this error --- Dial-up users aren't OS ``supposed'' to send email _directly_ from their (dynamic) connection. I did this routinely when I used dialup, and it always was OK. Local qmail collects messages and sendthem directly, what's bad in that? A Better way is to have your local MTA collect messages (assuming you want to do your mail writing offline ..) and relay them through another SMTP server. With your scenario, what happens if the host you're trying to send a message to is unreachable ? SMTP retries are handled better witha host connected to the net 24H .. OS There are several other reasons to that, mainly is the fact that you don't OS want replies to go to dialup-XXX.CITY.netvision.net.il .. What's the connection? You get replies basing on your message's headers, not on your IP. Ofcourse. So in your case you rewrite the headers to say "From: $user@$isp" .. OS You're supposed to relay all of your outgoing messages through your ISP's OS mail server (usually mail.ISP). Some very helpful ISPs in Israel are rejecting mail which has From: different from [EMAIL PROTECTED] So you can't use your external/work/hotmail/whatever address from your dialup. I don't know what moved them to this strange decision (you can protect from spam relaying by IP, not by From: which is easily forgeable anyway)... ITYM for relaying. That's a poorly configured mail server. they should allow relay by IP, either from connection, or from comparing the `HELO' one .. If they can't match IPs, there's always the pop-before-smtp way .. -- Ors = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem
It's not just that the headers mention netvision. The rejected letter _comes_ from netvision: From: Mail Delivery Subsystem [EMAIL PROTECTED] :) = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 05:27:24PM +0200, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote: You can generally do it, but many sites use the MAPS DUL system to block such mails (because spammers often use this capability to send mass e-mails and escape liability with the ISP, because they don't touch the ISP's mail server this way). What do they do? Catch everything on port 25 and redirect it to the mailserver and then block whatever they don't like? Am I right in thinking that anything sent by sendmail without a smart host will be blocked then? Sorry for ignorance, at least I am trying to be enlightened? Are you talking about the MAPS DUL guys? They are just collecting IP ranges that ISPs around the world assign to dialup lines. I don't think it's an automatic process. Then any mail server administrator who chooses to use MAPS DUL configures the MTA on his mail server to check the source IP of each connection, whether it's in the DUL list, and if it is, reject the connection. Just like MAPS RBL and MAPS ORBS. You just choose which level of spam protection you want on your mail server. For low risk you can do none or just MAPS RBL, if you want more protection you can use ORBS, and if you're really desparate you also use DUL. You're sending e-mails directly from your dialup-line because *most* hosts aren't desparate enough to use DUL. Some are, though, so you better configure your mailer to use your ISP's mail relay. -- Alex Shnitman| http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] +--- http://alexsh.hectic.netUIN 188956PGP key on web page E1 F2 7B 6C A0 31 80 28 63 B8 02 BA 65 C7 8B BA If a Microsoft product fails, who do you sue? PGP signature
mail problem (summary)
The simplest solution (gratis a mark_o from netvision) is to set the DS flag in sendmail.cf to mailgw.netvision.net.il One minor glitch: It has to be root-level rather then user-level sendmail.cf (I like keeping all my modified rc and cf files at the user level so I don't need to copy more than my home directory when re-intsalling system etc) One more general (slighly off-topic) concern: This might be one of the last times I can get any linux advice from netvision for free. Starting in a month, it will cost "a lot of money". IMHO, this is bad for linux. Thanks again to all the helpful people who suggested various solutions, and especially to the very generous Geoffrey Mendelson. As always Dorit = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail problem (summary)
a question of personal interest --- is this issue (cost of support) specific to linux, or global to all OSes in netvision ? Hi Ors Thanks for asking. I think I wasn't clear enough: _As far as I understood yesterday_ they just made a decision that linux is hard to support. _Therefore they are going to add a specific linux-only support service for a "lot of money". What I find disturbing, is that, more likely than not, this might mean that _any_ simple linux question will now get grouped under this "special package". Am I too paranoid? Dorit = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
