Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-12-02 Thread paddy
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:45:58PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: So the best idea is indeed for downstream systems to have policies which are no more strict than upstream systems. Would it be possible for master to make call-outs to chiark ? would that solve the problem ? Regards, Paddy -- Perl

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-12-02 Thread Florian Weimer
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:45:58PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: So the best idea is indeed for downstream systems to have policies which are no more strict than upstream systems. Would it be possible for master to make call-outs to chiark ? would that solve the problem ? I don't think so.

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-12-02 Thread Stephen Gran
This one time, at band camp, Florian Weimer said: On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:45:58PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: So the best idea is indeed for downstream systems to have policies which are no more strict than upstream systems. Would it be possible for master to make call-outs to chiark

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-24 Thread Ian Jackson
Stephen Frost writes (Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time): *I* don't bounce much of anything. Talk to Ian about wanting to generate bounces, it wasn't my idea. What I want is for him to bounce it himself if he feels it needs to be bounced, not make master do it. What I want

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-23 Thread Stephen Frost
* Brian May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Are you saying you should bounce SPAM mail??? *I* don't bounce much of anything. Talk to Ian about wanting to generate bounces, it wasn't my idea. What I want is for him to bounce it himself if he feels it needs to be bounced, not make master do it. No, I

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-22 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 01:56:25PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: * Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: So if I have my system say `250' to a piece of mail, I'm guaranteeing that either I'll bounce it (and get a `250' on the bounce), or that some human (me or someone else I know) will read

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-22 Thread Ian Jackson
James Troup writes (Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time): The change was made roughly less than 24 hours before your first post to debian-devel. There wasn't actually all that much time to contact you in. You (plural) could have _just_ contacted me and I would have fixed it, as I have

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-22 Thread Stephen Frost
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I don't want to accept any random crap that a forwarding host might send me just because I asked it to forward mail for me; my resources (in the form of bandwidth, processing time, and disk space) are limited, and if Then don't run a mail server.

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-22 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:57:27AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I don't want to accept any random crap that a forwarding host might send me just because I asked it to forward mail for me; my resources (in the form of bandwidth, processing time,

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-22 Thread Darren Salt
I demand that Simon Richter may or may not have written... Rolf Kutz wrote: emails because of obviously nonexistent envelope addresses, that doesn't count those systems where we don't accept mail from *at all* because they are dialup systems. This, however, is a small system with 10 email

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-22 Thread Simon Richter
Hi, Darren Salt wrote: There is a database where ISPs can register the ranges they assign for dialup users. Isn't that for dynamic-IP dial-up only? AFAIK there are two lists, however only few static dialup IPs are registered -- after all, the interesting attribute is whether the

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-22 Thread Brian May
Stephen == Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So if I have my system say `250' to a piece of mail, I'm guaranteeing that either I'll bounce it (and get a `250' on the bounce), or that some human (me or someone else I know) will read it. Stephen Sure, so say '250' and

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-21 Thread Simon Richter
Hi, Andreas Metzler wrote: The real problem with these bounces is not that they fill up the forwarding host's queue but that they are usually unwanted. Think Joe Job. This thread is about email that is obviously not legitimate just looking at the envelope. In this day and age, everyone

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-21 Thread Rolf Kutz
* Quoting Simon Richter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): emails because of obviously nonexistent envelope addresses, that doesn't count those systems where we don't accept mail from *at all* because they are dialup systems. This, however, is a small system with 10 email How do you define dialup

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-21 Thread Simon Richter
Hello, Rolf Kutz wrote: emails because of obviously nonexistent envelope addresses, that doesn't count those systems where we don't accept mail from *at all* because they are dialup systems. This, however, is a small system with 10 email How do you define dialup systems and tell dialup

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-21 Thread Ian Jackson
Six days ago I discovered that one of the Debian system administrators had made a deliberate and highly unusual configuration change which predictably broke mail from or via master to: * me personally * some of the =8 other Debian developers who have accounts on chiark * the Technical Committee

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-21 Thread Andreas Metzler
Simon Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Metzler wrote: The real problem with these bounces is not that they fill up the forwarding host's queue but that they are usually unwanted. Think Joe Job. This thread is about email that is obviously not legitimate just looking at the

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-21 Thread James Troup
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Six days ago I discovered that one of the Debian system administrators had made a deliberate and highly unusual configuration change which predictably broke mail from or via master to: Err, no. Mail was _already_ bouncing, but after reaching the retry

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-19 Thread Andreas Metzler
Andy Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 12:48:30PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: * Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost writes (Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time): Then bounce it locally. Duh. No reason to force master to deal with the bounce

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-19 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
2005/11/19, Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED]: FWIW he currently does a. Rejecting at SMTP time causes backscatter on forwarded mail, as the forwarding host cannot reject because it already has accepted the mail. And usual way to deal with this is to set: ignore_errmsg_errors_after = 7d If a

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-19 Thread Ian Jackson
Andy Smith writes (Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time): Instead of either side in this debate saying Not my problem, you should do this... how about reaching some compromise? It sounds like in the short term, Ian needs to discard some mail instead of rejecting, and in the long term

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-19 Thread Ian Jackson
Stephen Frost writes (Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time): * Andy Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: a) inflict bounce spam scatter on the forged from addresses in the malware and spam he doesn't want to accept delivery for; or ... It's his choice to do either (a) or (b) or (c). I

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-19 Thread Andreas Metzler
Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2005/11/19, Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED]: FWIW he currently does a. Rejecting at SMTP time causes backscatter on forwarded mail, as the forwarding host cannot reject because it already has accepted the mail. And usual way to deal with this

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-19 Thread Stephen Frost
* Steinar H. Gunderson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 02:11:43PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: I expect you could do it though I havn't tried myself because I'm not a big fan of smtp-level rejects exactly for these reasons. I just accept and then discard (at least for

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-19 Thread Stephen Frost
* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost writes (Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time): * Andy Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: a) inflict bounce spam scatter on the forged from addresses in the malware and spam he doesn't want to accept delivery for; or ... It's

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-18 Thread Ian Jackson
Steve Langasek writes (Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time): On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 04:01:10PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: But, there is another important point: I don't really want a debian.org address. It's technically necessary for me to have one for (eg) cronmail from debian

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-18 Thread Ian Jackson
Steve Langasek writes (Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time): Anyway, the line in question is still in master's exim4 config; you may want to try sending a mail to debian-admin, let them know what you've done on your end, and ask if there's anything still preventing its removal... Well

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-18 Thread Stephen Frost
* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Steve Langasek writes (Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time): So accept it and auto-discard it instead, if you prefer; but don't throw it back at master after telling master to send it to you. I'm strange in that I like my mail to be reliable

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-18 Thread Stephen Frost
* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost writes (Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time): Then bounce it locally. Duh. No reason to force master to deal with the bounce messages you feel are 'right' to send. I don't bounce it. I reject it at SMTP time with a 4xx or 5xx

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-18 Thread Ian Jackson
Stephen Frost writes (Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time): Then bounce it locally. Duh. No reason to force master to deal with the bounce messages you feel are 'right' to send. I don't bounce it. I reject it at SMTP time with a 4xx or 5xx code. Iaan. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-18 Thread Andy Smith
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 12:48:30PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: * Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost writes (Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time): Then bounce it locally. Duh. No reason to force master to deal with the bounce messages you feel are 'right' to send

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-18 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Stephen Frost wrote: * Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost writes (Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time): Then bounce it locally. Duh. No reason to force master to deal with the bounce messages you feel are 'right' to send. I don't bounce

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-18 Thread Stephen Frost
* Andy Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: You would prefer that Ian: a) inflict bounce spam scatter on the forged from addresses in the malware and spam he doesn't want to accept delivery for; or That is what he's said he wants to do. What I want him to do is have *his* servers do it, not

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-18 Thread Stephen Frost
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Since we are talking about it, it is not always trivial to special-case an incoming connection for a local bounce instead of a SMTP-level bounce, though. At least not with all MTAs. Using an MTA with the capabilities you need should be

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-18 Thread Steinar H. Gunderson
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 02:11:43PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: I expect you could do it though I havn't tried myself because I'm not a big fan of smtp-level rejects exactly for these reasons. I just accept and then discard (at least for known userids, but I don't expect many people to be

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-17 Thread Frank Küster
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No: there is nothing proper about rejecting mail from a host that you have configured to forward mail for you. Nearly all of this mail flow is invalid in one way or another. Of course it is. That doesn't make it proper to reject such mail when

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-17 Thread Steve Langasek
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 01:41:31PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No: there is nothing proper about rejecting mail from a host that you have configured to forward mail for you. Nearly all of this mail flow is invalid in one way or another. Of

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-16 Thread Tim Cutts
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 15 Nov 2005, at 2:34 pm, Steve Langasek wrote: * The mail backlog that `will never be able to be delivered' was (as far as I can tell) all spam that chiark has been properly rejecting. No: there is nothing proper about rejecting mail

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-16 Thread Andy Smith
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:51:10PM +, Tim Cutts wrote: On 15 Nov 2005, at 2:34 pm, Steve Langasek wrote: No: there is nothing proper about rejecting mail from a host that you have configured to forward mail for you. I can see where you're coming from, but it's unavoidable, isn't it?

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-16 Thread Steve Langasek
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 04:01:10PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: If a domain was set up to be treated this way for an unrelated reasons without an announcement anywhere, surely that is even worse ! Well, it's no longer DSA is making misleading statements about the nature of the problem; the fact

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-15 Thread Ian Jackson
Ryan Murray writes (master's mail backlog and upgrade time): Also, I've investigated the mail backlog on master and found the main problem. The mail queue is currently full of email that will never be able to be delivered, all for one particular user. This mail is being removed from

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-15 Thread Steve Langasek
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:18:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Ryan Murray writes (master's mail backlog and upgrade time): Also, I've investigated the mail backlog on master and found the main problem. The mail queue is currently full of email that will never be able to be delivered, all

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-15 Thread Ian Jackson
Steve Langasek writes (Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time): Based on specifics (well... more-specific vaguenesses) mentioned by Ryan elsewhere, I don't believe this is the case. Chiark appears to be on the wrong continent to be attached to the user in question, and reducing one to two

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-15 Thread Ian Jackson
Steve Langasek writes (Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time): On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:18:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: * It is unfortunate that (a) master has such a lax spam policy and that (b) Debian developers cannot choose to make their @debian.org address unuseable

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-15 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Nov 15, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But, there is another important point: I don't really want a debian.org address. Me neither. In the past the debian-admins suggested that they would consider allowing to disable them if somebody else implemented everything needed to do it. --

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-15 Thread Ian Jackson
Marco d'Itri writes (Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time): [I don't want a debian.org address either]. In the past the debian-admins suggested that they would consider allowing to disable them if somebody else implemented everything needed to do it. Do we know what would be needed

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-15 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Nov 15, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [I don't want a debian.org address either]. In the past the debian-admins suggested that they would consider allowing to disable them if somebody else implemented everything needed to do it. Do we know what would be needed ? An updated exim

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-06 Thread Jochen Voss
Hi Ryan, On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:38:43PM -0800, Ryan Murray wrote: Also, I've investigated the mail backlog on master and found the main problem. The mail queue is currently full of email that will never be able to be delivered, all for one particular user. Why would that be? Could you

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-03 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Ryan Murray wrote: Also, I've investigated the mail backlog on master and found the main problem. The mail queue is currently full of email that will never be able to be delivered, all for one particular user. This mail is being Can you give us more data on this? --

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

2005-11-03 Thread Drew Parsons
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:38 -0800, Ryan Murray wrote: Also, I've investigated the mail backlog on master and found the main problem. The mail queue is currently full of email that will never be able to be delivered, all for one particular user. This mail is being removed from the queue, and