Re: [mailop] Hotmail blocks mail to postmaster in violation of 5321/2821/821
Roger wilco, Sergeant Bilko. Though if that's enough to piss off Hotmail, it's time to replace some people... Cheers, -- jra - Original Message - > From: "Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop" > To: "Mailop" > Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 1:20:01 PM > Subject: Re: [mailop] Hotmail blocks mail to postmaster in violation of > 5321/2821/821 > Take a look at this RBL tester -- at present it tests 239 lists and > provides more detailed reporting: > > The complete IP check for sending Mailservers > https://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/45.79.209.44.html > > A few of the lesser-known lists show that your IP address has been > hitting spam traps. (I believe you deserve the white gloves, which > go well with a white hat, and I'm hoping this might be a helpful > resource for you -- I have a few others, if anyone's interested.) > >> This violates the RFCs with *exceptional* thoroughness. >> [ RFC 5321 ss. 4.5.1 and 6.3, to wit. ] >> >> If you are, or know, a postmaster at hotmail.com/outlook.com, >> please take my white gloves and smack yourself/them across the face. >> >> Then tell them their error messages don't contain the codes listed >> in their error table webpage, and I'm not blacklisted anyway. >> >> https://mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=blacklist%3a45.79.209.44=toolpage >> >> Cheers, >> -- jra >> >> - Forwarded Message - >> > From: "Mail Delivery System" >> > To: "jra" >> > Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 12:22:09 PM >> > Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender >> >> > This is the mail system at host franklin.baylink.com. >> > >> > I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not >> > be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below. >> > >> > For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster. >> > >> > If you do so, please include this problem report. You can >> > delete your own text from the attached returned message. >> > >> > The mail system >> > >> > : host >> >hotmail-com.olc.protection.outlook.com[104.47.11.33] said: 550 5.7.1 >> >Unfortunately, messages from [45.79.209.44] weren't sent. Please contact >> >your Internet service provider since part of their network is on our >> > block >> >list (S3150). You can also refer your provider to >> >http://mail.live.com/mail/troubleshooting.aspx#errors. >> >[VI1EUR02FT025.eop-EUR02.prod.protection.outlook.com >> > 2024-02-05T17:21:57.814Z 08DC264B5E1D1A8E] (in reply to MAIL FROM >> > command) >> >> -- >> Jay R. Ashworth Baylink >> j...@baylink.com >> Designer The Things I Think RFC >> 2100 >> Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover >> DII >> St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 >> 1274 >> > > > -- > Postmaster - postmas...@inter-corporate.com > Randolf Richardson, CNA - rand...@inter-corporate.com > Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc. > Vancouver, Beautiful British Columbia, Canada > https://www.inter-corporate.com/ > > > ___ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
[mailop] Hotmail blocks mail to postmaster in violation of 5321/2821/821
This violates the RFCs with *exceptional* thoroughness. [ RFC 5321 ss. 4.5.1 and 6.3, to wit. ] If you are, or know, a postmaster at hotmail.com/outlook.com, please take my white gloves and smack yourself/them across the face. Then tell them their error messages don't contain the codes listed in their error table webpage, and I'm not blacklisted anyway. https://mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=blacklist%3a45.79.209.44=toolpage Cheers, -- jra - Forwarded Message - > From: "Mail Delivery System" > To: "jra" > Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 12:22:09 PM > Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender > This is the mail system at host franklin.baylink.com. > > I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not > be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below. > > For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster. > > If you do so, please include this problem report. You can > delete your own text from the attached returned message. > > The mail system > > : host >hotmail-com.olc.protection.outlook.com[104.47.11.33] said: 550 5.7.1 >Unfortunately, messages from [45.79.209.44] weren't sent. Please contact >your Internet service provider since part of their network is on our block >list (S3150). You can also refer your provider to >http://mail.live.com/mail/troubleshooting.aspx#errors. >[VI1EUR02FT025.eop-EUR02.prod.protection.outlook.com > 2024-02-05T17:21:57.814Z 08DC264B5E1D1A8E] (in reply to MAIL FROM command) -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 --- Begin Message --- This bounce refers me to an error code list, but *does not include an error code that's in that table*; you need to fix this at the MTA level; it won't be useless to just me. I've had this IP address to myself, in Linode Atlanta, for over 8 years now; it should not be in anyone's blacklist. And indeed, it *isn't*: https://mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=blacklist%3a45.79.209.44=toolpage Please find and fix this problem? Cheers, -- jra - Forwarded Message - > From: "Mail Delivery System" > To: "jra" > Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 12:18:05 PM > Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender > This is the mail system at host franklin.baylink.com. > > I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not > be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below. > > For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster. > > If you do so, please include this problem report. You can > delete your own text from the attached returned message. > > The mail system > > : host hotmail-com.olc.protection.outlook.com[52.101.73.17] >said: 550 5.7.1 Unfortunately, messages from [45.79.209.44] weren't sent. >Please contact your Internet service provider since part of their network >is on our block list (S3150). You can also refer your provider to >http://mail.live.com/mail/troubleshooting.aspx#errors. >[AMS0EPF019D.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com 2024-02-05T17:18:05.287Z > 08DC2285AE7B731F] (in reply to MAIL FROM command) -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 --- Begin Message --- Clearly the audience loved it as well. :-) Thanks for coming out, and let me know what logistics are involved in getting your album collection. I can Zelle or Paypal money; you can mail a thumbdrive, or I can download if you are set up to handle that (300mbs cable service is wonderful stuff). Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 --- End Message --- --- End Message --- ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Samsung and SIZE
- Original Message - > From: "Sebastian Nielsen via mailop" >>> That header is supposed to be attached by the originating MUA, and I don't >>> *think* transit MTAs are permitted to rewrite it... > > Problem is, that when MUA or first MTA has a incorrect date set, the email > comes > like last in inbox... have seen emails set with 1970-01-01 00:00:00 Or, even > worse, it has a date that is like, several months off, so you have to SEARCH > your inbox after that unread email that was popped into the middle. > > Thus to avoid that irritating problem, both for my users, and for myself, I > just > set the Date: header to the server time, correcting any incorrect dates. > > Whats so wrong with it. Well, you've changed the field here; if you're only talking about a *terminating* MTA, not a transit one -- accepting incoming traffic for your own mailboxes -- then how tightly you need to adhere to the RFCs is probably "not as much". But it would only be the MUA; the originating MTA shouldn't be rewriting headers it's not supposed to either. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Samsung and SIZE
- Original Message - > From: "Sebastian Nielsen via mailop" > Why is it a problem? The server ignores commands that it don't have capability > for anyways. > > Only wonkiness of Samsung Mail (same in Microsoft Outlook), I have noticed, is > that new email happens to arrive in the middle of the inbox if the sending > server has its date incorrectly set. (EXTREMELY irritating if the server is > off > by more than a day or similar). > > So I do this in my SMTP server to correct the date of all incoming emails: > > accept >remove_header = date >add_header = Date: $tod_full > > What it does, is deleting the header "Date:" and then adds a new header > "Date:" > with the actual server time of MY server. I don't have 5322 swapped in just now, but doesn't rewriting that header violate it? That header is supposed to be attached by the originating MUA, and I don't *think* transit MTAs are permitted to rewrite it... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] [ADMIN] I'm going for a lie down
- Original Message - > From: "Graeme Fowler via mailop" > To: "mailop" > Cc: "Simon Lyall" > Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 1:01:01 PM > Subject: [mailop] [ADMIN] I'm going for a lie down > Hi folks > > Apologies for not mentioning this any earlier, but at 0700 tomorrow I’m > reporting to hospital to have my right hip replaced. I’m going to be largely > incommunicado for a while. Be nice to each other, behave, try the veal, tip > your waitress etc :) > > Dont’ give Simon or Patrick a hard time in terms of moderation, please. Wait; this list has moderation? :-) Best of luck; we're really good at this sort of thing these days... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
[mailop] Zero-day RCE for exim - whacky stats?
I haven't even heard exim *mentioned* in like 20 years; these stats can't be right, can they? https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/millions-of-exim-mail-servers-exposed-to-zero-day-rce-attacks/ Hat tip: Lauren @ Privacy Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Legit-looking mail to the wrong address with no unsubscribe
Oh dear ghod yes. I want to line everyone who's ever recommended noreply@ up against the wall and [ At this point in the broadcast, Jay thought better of saying what he wanted to do in a posting to a public mailing list, but trust me, it was going to be very satisfying to hear about, for everyone who's ever wanted to reply to such a message. And could not. ] Cheers, -- jra - Original Message - > From: "Mike Hillyer via mailop" > To: "Mike Hillyer" , "Chris Adams" , > mailop@mailop.org > Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2023 9:23:40 AM > Subject: Re: [mailop] Legit-looking mail to the wrong address with no > unsubscribe > One more note: in my opinion transactional messages should never come from a > noreply@ but instead should route to customer support, so that cases of > mistaken identity can be resolved by replying and letting them you that the > messages are not reaching their intended recipient. > > -Original Message- > From: mailop On Behalf Of Mike Hillyer via mailop > Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2023 9:03 AM > To: Chris Adams ; mailop@mailop.org > Subject: Re: [mailop] Legit-looking mail to the wrong address with no > unsubscribe > > Adding an unsub link for truly transactional mail can result is missed > messages > later on, which is why there's usually not an unsub link. > > You get a doordash status message, you decide you don't need them, you > unsubscribe. A couple of months later you need to reset your password and now > you never get the reset link because you unsubscribed from transactional > messages? Sure, we can get infinitely granular or always exempt password > resets, but it becomes a slippery slope that results in a lot of engineering > hours. > > And as I said at the start of this message, I am only applying this logic to > truly transactional messages, which in my mind are those triggered by a user > action and those in the chain of events triggered by a user action. If someone > at the vendor has to click Send, it's not a transactional message. > > Mike > > -Original Message- > From: mailop On Behalf Of Chris Adams via mailop > Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2023 8:13 AM > To: mailop@mailop.org > Subject: [mailop] Legit-looking mail to the wrong address with no unsubscribe > > What do you do when legitimate mail (lately, DoorDash order info and Delta > Airlines tickets) is sent to the wrong address? These types of messages > rarely > have an unsubscribe method. I get a ton of crap to a Gmail address that I > really only use for Google-related stuff (not as a general email box), so I > know instantly that this is not to me. > > Why do vendors think they don't need an unsubscribe in this type of mail? > Just > because their customers are dumb and don't know their own email address > doesn't > mean they should continue sending personal information about them to other > people. > -- > Chris Adams > ___ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop > ___ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop > ___ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Charter/Spectrum Tampa SMTP relay question
- Original Message - > From: "L. Mark Stone via mailop" > I live in a Spectrum market, and their Consumer Internet Terms of Service > prohibit certain (what they deem to be commercial) activities, like hosting an > email server. In years past, they just blocked outbound port 25 on consumer > internet connections. > > My suspicion is Spectrum have recently added this new enforcement capability; > you may want to check if your customer's Kerio server is connected to the > Internet via a real Business account or not as a first step. Well, I have it from a Charter person that they no longer permit relaying for ANY accounts, business or residential -- not through their mailservers, anyway. Haven't for a long time, is the impression I was given; we were just lucky that the implementation took this long to get to our mailserver in/for Tampa. So it's flip off relaying and see if the cableswamp is still getting blocked everywhere, or find a relay service on a "real" IP in a datacenter somewhere. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Charter/Spectrum Tampa SMTP relay question
- Original Message - > From: "Jarland Donnell via mailop" > Relaying your domain email through your local ISP, is that a common > approach? It seems weird from my perspective. I’d route it through > mail.baby instead and call it a day. Interserver is doing great work > over there with a mailchannels fallback for pennies. Legacy setup, I just parachuted in. But their uplink is cablemodem, even though static, in 24/8; are there not cable-swamp problems with outbound SMTP these days? They do have working RDNS for the IP, at least, I see it in the MXtoolbox test logs... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
[mailop] Charter/Spectrum Tampa SMTP relay question
A couple days ago, a client started getting 550 errors on their outbound mail from a local install of KerioConnect, saying that the From had to match the email address in the SMTP Auth -- which of course it wouldn't, domain relaying doesn't work like that. This sounds like a deliverability policy change, and I hope it's obvious why I don't even *expect* the tech support line to know what I'm talking about. :-) Can anyone in Spectrum confirm or deny, and maybe tell me what the expected way to do this has become now? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
[mailop] Where does one report a fake google account trying to attach to...
...one's real Gmail account? One of my clients is being attacked in a targeted manner, and the latest item is "I'm trying to attach fakeacco...@gmail.com to your r...@gmail.com, click this link in the Gmail authorizing email to say that's ok". It provides no particular way to report the requestor as an attacker, but does say "go to any Gmail page and click Help, then Contact Us from the link in the footer". Needless to say, that set of instructions has outlasted the actual objects still being in the UI where they say they are... So, anyone got any ideas how to address with gmail "this user trying to attach to my mailbox is not me, they're someone specifically trying to defraud me; please report them to the relevant authorities"? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] RFCs on quoted pairs in From: ?
- Original Message - > From: "John Levine" > In article <697111646.5008.1611936662090.javamail.zim...@baylink.com> you > write: >>No standard forces a telephone to use NPAs rather than ZIP codes at the >>front of a phone number, I don't think ... > > ITU-T E.164-2010 > > How son they forget. And you precisely make Mr Crocker's point. That standard constrains *the end office class 5 switch*. It doesn't constrain this 500 set on my desk. It doesn't *really* constrain the cellphone I carry either; that's the MTSO. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] RFCs on quoted pairs in From:?
- Original Message - > From: "Dave Crocker" > On 1/27/2021 10:29 PM, Jay R. Ashworth via mailop wrote: >> So you agree with him that an angle-bracketed address*inside quotes* should >> be ignored by an MUA -- at least if there's a valid address not inside quotes >> in the same header? >> >> Should the MUA go inside the quotes in the header to find one if there isn't >> one that's quoted? Or should it error out as "no address to reply to"? >> I would think it should error; the 'protection' of the quoting shouldn't >> be conditional. >> >> Sounds like Thomas thinks Tbird has a bug in its header parsing code, and I >> agree with him -- and, I think, you. > > Well... maybe a bug. Possibly not. > > The standards pertain to interaction between standardized functional > (networking) components. At the very beginning and the very end of the > chain of standardized components are components that are outside of the > standards. End points that actually /use/ the data, on behalf of an > author or recipient. > > Since this is outside the standards, there are no official rules for > what is allowed or disallowed. > > Within the RFC 5322 standard, a quoted display-name string is a bag of > uninterpreted bytes, except as noted in the ABNF I cited before. > Anything that goes into that string and 'interprets' it is outside the > standard. Well, you've been doing this longer than me, but that's not my interpretation of the situation... :-) The job of standards like RFCs is to *define the interface between syntax and semantics*, as I see it: they tell you what the data *means*. That's information that's in the domain of end applications as well, as I see it: the MUA should care what the RFC thinks about the semantics of that data, since everyone else is already singing off that page of the hymnal. No standard forces a telephone to use NPAs rather than ZIP codes at the front of a phone number, I don't think, but you won't interface with the network (for which Bellcore's "Notes (heh) on the Networks" is that standard)... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] RFCs on quoted pairs in From:?
- Original Message -
> From: "Dave Crocker via mailop"
> On 1/27/2021 4:40 AM, Thomas Walter via mailop wrote:
>> My understanding is that a quoted pair can contain characters that
>> otherwise would be treated differently. Characters like spaces, but also
>> angle brackets and such.
>>
>> So in the following header, the address should be the last part in angle
>> brackets (""), but the first part should be the
>> "name" part, including the angle-brackets and email - "Some Person
>> "?
>
> That sounds right.
>
> Relevant ABNF from RFC 5322, where the comments for qtext are probably
> the most helpful:
So you agree with him that an angle-bracketed address *inside quotes* should
be ignored by an MUA -- at least if there's a valid address not inside quotes
in the same header?
Should the MUA go inside the quotes in the header to find one if there isn't
one that's quoted? Or should it error out as "no address to reply to"?
I would think it should error; the 'protection' of the quoting shouldn't
be conditional.
Sounds like Thomas thinks Tbird has a bug in its header parsing code, and I
agree with him -- and, I think, you.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] GMail 550 5.1.1?
- Original Message - > From: "Chris" > To: "Lyndon Nerenberg" , "jra" > Cc: "Chris" , mailop@mailop.org > On 2020-12-20 14:00, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: >>> The original quote, IIRC, was talking about Henry Spencer at UT Zoology, who >>> got Usenet that way for a while. >> >> More likely it was in relation to Australia's Usenet "feed" which was a daily >> FedEx air shipment of 9-track tapes. At the time, FedEx Air was cheaper than >> the very expensive submarine cable link. > > There is some confusion here. Lyndon is correct as for Australia. Jay > has it backwards. Ah: he *sent* Usenet out that way. Got it. FWIW, Andy Tanenbaum got back to me before I could rig in my antenna, and tells me that his quote wasn't conditioned on any particular situation. Jay regrets the error. > The Australia link was what I was referring to. Which was connected > with NASA, and I believe Eugene Miya was involved. > > That's what the quote was referring to, and may have even been from Tom > - he is that sort. However: > > Henry (who I was in CompSci with at UofT and knew him quite well) > received Usenet via dialup modem at node utzoo, and spread it outwards > from there. The sites I ran got it from utzoo. After a couple of > years, I returned the favour and my site (mnetor - Computer X > (subsidiary of Motorola) became the long haul link into Canada (via X.25 > UUCP d protocol from Rick Adams' side at seismo), and I fed utzoo, BNR, > LSUC, York et. al. > > [I then ended up in BNR, which for a while was one of the largest Usenet > transit sites in the world.] > > Tom's connection with magtapes vis-a-vis Usenet that Jay is referring to > is the *archive* of the Usenet traffic that Henry kept on tape, and gave > to Dejanews. I dunno; I got mine -- thanks to Spaf, then at GATech -- over a 1200bps modem from USF. :-) Henry's was, I think, the biggest contribution to DejaGoo, but there were, IIRC, hundreds, and at least a few of them (possibly including utzoo's) were conditioned on Google's (not really fulfilled) promise to aggregate it *and make all of it available in a useful form*. It's been 30 or 35 years, the possibility I'm misremembering some of it does exist. But I have a bit set -- and it's a pretty large bit -- that Google promised some stuff that they never delivered, and people depended on it. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Firefox Relay
- Original Message - > From: "Russell Clemings via mailop" > On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 6:21 AM Robert Rubenking via mailop < > mailop@mailop.org > > wrote: > > They also state that anything marked as spam will ding the reputation of relay > service. > "If you report these as spam, your email provider will see Relay as the source > of spam, not the original sender." > > > This looks like a fatal flaw. How long before Relay winds up on a lot of > blacklists? Unless I badly misunderstand the RFCs, and I don't think I do, that means they're screwing up pretty badly somewhere. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] GMail 550 5.1.1?
- Original Message - > From: "Chris via mailop" > You'd ask a question of someone in Australia, and you generally had an > answer within 3-4 days. > > Which led, in part, to the old meme "never underestimate the bandwidth > of a shipment of magtapes". "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of magtape, hurtling down the highway." -- Andy S Tanenbaum CS prof in NL, creator of Minix, and for 20 years, my favorite US politics pundit. The original quote, IIRC, was talking about Henry Spencer at UT Zoology, who got Usenet that way for a while. I could tell you for sure, but Google never released the DejaNews corpus as they promised... 30 years ago. Cheers, -- jr "don't be evil" a -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Looking for possible mailing list hosting
- Original Message - > From: "Grant Taylor via mailop" > On 12/16/20 10:21 AM, Scott Mutter via mailop wrote: >> Have you considered simply putting up a website and putting phpBB or SMF >> or some other free forum software on it? You can set the forum to be >> private so users have to login to see posts. > > That's a bait and switch to me. > > Web (only) forums do *NOT* offer the same functionality as mailing lists. Oh dear ghod, no. >> Honestly, I see mailing lists as a dying breed (said as I post this to a >> mailing list). > > That's your opinion. One I happen to moderately disagree with. > >> A forum tends to work out better. > > That's also your opinion. One I VEHEMENTLY disagree with. Concur with Grant here. > As someone who subscribes to, reads, and interacts with about 300 > mailing lists and 200 newsgroups, there is no way in REDACTED that I'm > going to go to 500 different forums, many of which behave differently. > > For me, all 500 different lists / newsgroups come to /one/ interface > where I have /complete/ control over. Exactly. Though I'm only on about 8 or so. Showoff. :-) > Pulling from 500 different locations as opposed to 500 different > locations pushing to my single location is a COMPLETELY different usage > model. Well, devils advocate: 500 different mailing lists push to your inbox. :-) > Baiting me with a push and then switching to a pull model is > disingenuous at best. > > Don't even get me started on the UI/UX of things that I don't control. > -- > Grant. . . . > unix || die And that's it, right there. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Why 5xx? (was: GMail 550 5.1.1)
- Original Message - > From: "John Levine via mailop" > In article <20201215230437.ga23...@aether.stupidest.org> you write: >>things break, it happens... >> >>but why 5xx (vs 4xx) in this case? > > Because it's broken. > > HTH, HAND, > John Sure, I haven't had to sweep up behind John for a while, why not? "Because the send-mail cluster and the receive-mail cluster aren't both properly connected to the same auth server, so the receive-mail cluster can't tell those are valid mailboxes... even though presumably it *has the physical mailboxes handy*. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Is DNS-over-HTTPS bad? Sure. (was: Happy Holidays Everyone!)
- Original Message - > From: "Chris via mailop" > On 2020-07-05 15:19, Jay R. Ashworth via mailop wrote: > >> An argument I could tolerate -- corporate IT types can be expected to >> diagnose >> smartly enough to deal with it... though it will still make things more >> difficult for them. > > Impossible for them, short of blocking HTTPS for everything. It's possible you might have misunderstood my concern. If I'm an IT type, and I'm trying to diagnose why *you* can't get to a website, all my other tools -- which were built atop the system DNS resolver -- are likely going to give me false negatives... as the telco guys used to say, "the trouble's leaving here fine!" I can't *tell* why your problem is happening, because I don't have diagnostic tools built atop D'oH *and* configured for what invisible server your browser is using to do lookups -- which might be different from browser to browser. In short, this multiplies the complexity of diagnosing an everyday problem... and the complexity of my monitoring system actually *monitoring* anything... by between .5 and 2 orders of magnitude. That's an added workload for which my permission was neither sought nor granted, nor has my budget or staffing been increased. It is merely the latest (the adoption of systemd by substantially *all* the Linux distros being one of the earliest) example of small decisions with Big Impacts being taken in a fashion which seems to me not-at-ALL engineering driven... which is the way both Linux and the Internet *used* to run... which is how they got here. I really actually don't get it. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Is DNS-over-HTTPS bad? Sure. (was: Happy Holidays Everyone!)
- Original Message - > From: "Andy Ringsmuth via mailop" >> On Jul 5, 2020, at 6:00 AM, Adam Moffett via mailop >> wrote: >>> Not to mention DNS over HTTPS breaks or renders ineffective most types of >>> content filtering. >>> >> That's a secondary concern perhaps. I'm betting 99% of users don't have >> content >> filtering and don't want it. > > As a parent, I ABSOLUTELY want content filtering. And as a sysadmin for > $DAYJOB > I want it as well. Sure. And no one wants you not to have it. But that's a strawman, a couple clicks to the left of the argument "should browsers unilaterally deploy a replacement for DNS", for which the engineering answer remains "hell, no". Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Is DNS-over-HTTPS bad? Sure. (was: Happy Holidays Everyone!)
- Original Message - > From: "Chris via mailop" > On 2020-07-05 07:00, Adam Moffett via mailop wrote: >>> Not to mention DNS over HTTPS breaks or renders ineffective most types >>> of content filtering. > >> That's a secondary concern perhaps. I'm betting 99% of users don't have >> content filtering and don't want it. > > Corporates need it. Not all users are retail. An argument I could tolerate -- corporate IT types can be expected to diagnose smartly enough to deal with it... though it will still make things more difficult for them. But this argument does *not* justify Mozilla offering it to me -- as a default choice no less -- on new fresh installs. As they are. Cheers, - jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
[mailop] Is DNS-over-HTTPS bad? Sure. (was: Happy Holidays Everyone!)
- Original Message - > From: "Andrew C Aitchison via mailop" > On Tue, 30 Jun 2020, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote: > >> * Stop promoting DNS over HTTPS as a good thing.. ;) > > Care to elaborate ? Sure. At it's most fundamental level, giving web browsers a different way to do DNS lookups overcomplicates debugging of problems by at least a couple orders of magnitude, even before you multiply it by "trying to get a straight answer out of the end user". Everything on a machine should use the same OS provided facility for looking up DNS. Additionally, nearly as I can tell, the aptly named D'oH is solving a problem that *users* don't have. But that's a separate issue. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
[mailop] Problem delivering to protection.outlook.com
A week or so ago, I discovered after 7 years that my mail server (running Zimbra 8) was an open relay. :-} I tightened it up after about 4 hours, and checked a couple RBL checkers, (MXtoolbox and anti-abuse) and there were only 3 hits for the IP, and I requested clearance on them, and got it, and both now show all green... but when I tried to send someone at hotmail an email today, I got the below bounce, which includes an error code, and a link to a page of error codes *which does not include that code or anything like it*. Is there someone on here from outlook.com or the protection subdomain, who can a) tell me how I *would* clean that up -- the linked page of error codes mentions Spamhaus, but they seem ok with me too, and b) clean up either the SMTP error message you're sending out or the table you tell people to look it up in? :-) Cheers, -- jr a - Forwarded Message - > From: "Mail Delivery System" > To: "jra" > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 7:13:30 PM > Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender > This is the mail system at host franklin.baylink.com. > > I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not > be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below. > > For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster. > > If you do so, please include this problem report. You can > delete your own text from the attached returned message. > > The mail system > > : host >hotmail-com.olc.protection.outlook.com[104.47.6.33] said: 550 5.7.1 >Unfortunately, messages from [45.79.209.44] weren't sent. Please contact >your Internet service provider since part of their network is on our block >list (S3150). You can also refer your provider to >http://mail.live.com/mail/troubleshooting.aspx#errors. >[VE1EUR02FT022.eop-EUR02.prod.protection.outlook.com] (in reply to MAIL > FROM command) -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
[mailop] Spectrum webmail folks around?
My sister's inherited tampabay.rr.com account -- the only one we have to look at your webmail client with -- is unreasonably slow in retrieving mail from folders. On my 16GB i7 with Win 10, it can take on the order of a minute to open a folder with 3 messages in it; much longer for things like the Inbox. Ridiculously longer on less powerful devices, like her Android tablet. I'm told this is a pervasive problem with the webmail service. Is it, perhaps, trying to implement an entire IMAP client in Javascript? If there's anyone in that department at that carrier who can comment on this, that'd be great. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Is Spectrum trying to sunset rr.com and twc.com emails?
From: "Russell Clemings via mailop" > On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 6:59 PM Jay R. Ashworth via mailop < mailop@mailop.org > > > wrote (in part): > > > but my experience of email carrier buyouts is that no-one *ever* sunsets the > > domain names, cause there's no real reason to do so, and it pisses off > > end-users. > > Tell that to Comcast, which bought attbi.com and made all of their users > change > their email addresses to comcast.net , just as attbi.com had done a few years > earlier when it bought mediaone.net . Quite a few years ago, but it was a > colossal pain. > > https://www.marketingsherpa.com/article/blog/19-million-attbi-email-addresses Well, the snap answer there is "why the hell would you stay?" If you're going to have to flush through a change cycle on an email that -- if they're being that stupid anyway, they're probably not going to forward -- why would you stay with the carrier anyway. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
[mailop] Apparently not. (was: Re: Is Spectrum trying to sunset rr.com and twc.com emails?)
- Original Message - > From: "Jerry Cloe" > Several months ago I could no longer deliver to @kc.rr.com, and this went on > for > months, finally mx records changed one day and all of a sudden its working > again. I have to wonder if that wasn't some kind of test or mistake, and then > they realized that yes, customers do still use those addresses. Maybe, but I have an offlist reply which both appears -- and claims :-) -- to be authoritative, which says no such plans are in-work. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
[mailop] Is Spectrum trying to sunset rr.com and twc.com emails?
A client got an email that appeared to be from Keap, or maybe InfusionSoft, suggesting that Spectrum was trying to do that, and that users shouldn't add contacts with those emails unless they were "bone-fide" (which was my only hint)... but my experience of email carrier buyouts is that no-one *ever* sunsets the domain names, cause there's no real reason to do so, and it pisses off end-users. The email also pointed to this domain name, which looks semi-official, and I can't decide if the whole thing is some clever spear-fishing attempt, or just someone who misunderstood something and is trying to be helpful. Does anyone on the list know if there's such a sunset policy in process? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
