On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 15:50 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Lindsay Haisley writes:
>
> > On the lists which I administer myself I try to make the unsubscribe
> > process very easy and transparent. Every user who tries,
> > unsuccessfully, to unsubscribe is sent the following clear and
>
Lindsay Haisley writes:
> On the lists which I administer myself I try to make the unsubscribe
> process very easy and transparent. Every user who tries,
> unsuccessfully, to unsubscribe is sent the following clear and
> unambiguous message with easy-to-follow instructions:
But no goats?! I
On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 18:23 -0700, Russell Clemings wrote:
> >From the reports I've received, it looks as if they redact only from the
> headers. With personalization on, I put a "%(user_address)s" token in the
> non-digest footer and as of the last report I got (June 8) it came through
> the feedb
-0500
> Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] AOL redacts user addresses even with VERP and
> full personalization enabled
> On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 20:42 -0400, Dave (FitEyes) wrote:
> > Now that you motivated me, I actually read the blog post too:
> >
> http://postmaster-blog.
Ah, if only I could write documentation as clear as that!
Best regards,
Mike
--
Mike Starr WriteStarr Information Services
Technical Writer -Online Help Developer - WordPress Websites
Graphic Designer - Desktop Publisher - Custom Microsoft Word templates
(26
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 14:48 -0500, Mike Starr wrote:
> Many of the mailman cognoscenti are highly skilled technical folks
> with little respect (and often little tolerance) for clueless users.
> Sometimes you just have to choke back the bile and lovingly correct
> those who have less understanding.
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 20:42 -0400, Dave (FitEyes) wrote:
> Now that you motivated me, I actually read the blog post too:
> http://postmaster-blog.aol.com/2008/08/13/more-on-the-upcoming-feedback-loop-conversion/
>
> It now seems pretty clear that we can use these reports in the way
> Lindsay and o
Lindsay Haisley writes:
> I posted code and patches earlier on this list, but the patch is against
> Mailman 2.1.15 rather than Mailman 3, which is the current development
> focus. I imagine it's rather different.
The code is organized quite differently, but I suspect that the
handler archite
On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 14:39 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Lindsay Haisley writes:
>
> > Any chance of requesting this in Mailman 3?
>
> As usual, the advice is to file a bug report/RFE on Launchpad, Mailman
> project, tag it Mailman 3 (or maybe that's milestone Mailman 3?)
>
> If you want
Lindsay Haisley writes:
> Any chance of requesting this in Mailman 3?
As usual, the advice is to file a bug report/RFE on Launchpad, Mailman
project, tag it Mailman 3 (or maybe that's milestone Mailman 3?)
If you want more discussion from the core people (well, Barry; Mark's
presumably already
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 21:07 -0400, Dave (FitEyes) wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Lindsay Haisley
> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 20:42 -0400, Dave (FitEyes) wrote:
> > It now seems pretty clear that we can use these reports in the way
> > Lindsay and othe
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 20:42 -0400, Dave (FitEyes) wrote:
> > Now that you motivated me, I actually read the blog post too:
> >
> http://postmaster-blog.aol.com/2008/08/13/more-on-the-upcoming-feedback-loop-conversion/
> >
> > It now seems p
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 20:42 -0400, Dave (FitEyes) wrote:
> Now that you motivated me, I actually read the blog post too:
> http://postmaster-blog.aol.com/2008/08/13/more-on-the-upcoming-feedback-loop-conversion/
>
> It now seems pretty clear that we can use these reports in the way
> Lindsay and o
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Russell Clemings wrote:
> I'm surprised to read in this thread that the terms of service for AOL's
> feedback loop forbid us from using its reports to identify users.
>
> The page where you sign up for the FBL seems to say just the opposite (end
> of third paragrap
I'm surprised to read in this thread that the terms of service for AOL's
feedback loop forbid us from using its reports to identify users.
The page where you sign up for the FBL seems to say just the opposite (end
of third paragraph):
"We suggest using opaque identifiers for the email recipient o
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:51 PM, William Yardley
wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 11:58:46PM -0500, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> > I have no idea why AOL wants to make it difficult for list
> > administrators to unsubscribe people who don't want to be subscribed
> > and who complain to AOL about list
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 15:51 -0700, William Yardley wrote:
> I think the point of the
> FBL is more to alert you to problems on your network
What problems??? I'm running a collection of opt-in Mailman lists,
administered by FMP's customers. There are no problems.
> eYes, people will click the "r
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 11:58:46PM -0500, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> I have no idea why AOL wants to make it difficult for list
> administrators to unsubscribe people who don't want to be subscribed
> and who complain to AOL about list posts being spam.
To prevent listwashing or retaliation, for one
This has been a fascinating discussion that I've been enjoying very much.
However, one thing we need to remember is that we, as list administrators, usually (but not always)
have far greater insight than the average user into the realities of what spam is and what spam
isn't. Most of us underst
Lindsay Haisley writes:
> provided to properly unsubscribe from a list, so they just find all the
> list posts that they can and report them as spam, hoping that AOL will
> help them unsubscribe.
Which is exactly what AOL's feedback service is designed to
prevent. :-( More irony
The sad
Lindsay Haisley writes:
> Well the implementation I've developed for use with Resent-Message-ID
> incorporates a random factor into the AES encryption so that every
> encryption of the same address is different, although all decrypt
> properly using the key with which they were encrypted. Thi
Geoff Shang writes:
> > Ah, but we can just say "this allows us to VERP without exposing
> > addresses on anybody's disk; this helps protect your users' privacy."
>
> Oh the irony.
Thank you for noticing!
--
Mailman-Users mailing list Mailm
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 15:05 -0400, David wrote:
> Furthermore, without exception on our list, when an AOL user triggers
> a feedback report, they do so on all the emails from our list that are
> currently in their inbox. There is zero content-specific selectivity.
> I've never seen it (on our list)
On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 03:30 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Lindsay Haisley writes:
>
> > EVERP = Encrypted VERP
>
> Ever heard of "Occam's Razor"?
Yes, I'm quite familiar with it :)
> Most folks who run Mailman lists can't
> expand "VERP", and wouldn't understand the expansion when told.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> David writes:
>
> > In terms of privacy, as list admins we already have the member's
> > information. All we are doing in this case is helping that member stop
> > receiving messages they obviously no longer wish to receive. This is
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 17:17 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Nice try, but we still can't define AOL's policy for them. AOL's
> claim is that we need to fix our spam problem, not unsubscribe the
> member,
Isn't that the same thing? The object is to prevent the complaining
recipient from recei
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >From a practical point of view my EVERP proposal may not be a good
> scheme for dealing with AOL's redaction policy in Email Feedback
> Reports. Although it would obviously fool the existing automated
> redaction process, a radical change to th
Lindsay Haisley writes:
> EVERP = Encrypted VERP
Ever heard of "Occam's Razor"? Most folks who run Mailman lists can't
expand "VERP", and wouldn't understand the expansion when told. It's
not obvious to me that practioners would get it right, either. Let's
not proliferate unnecessary acronyms
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 13:23 -0700, Brad Knowles wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Larry Stone wrote:
>
> > And the problem that I'm trying to fix is that their user has
> >violated MY TOS regarding reporting list mail (that they subscribed
> >to) as spam. That AOL sent their Feedback Loop mes
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 17:25 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Brad Knowles writes:
> > On Jun 18, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> >
> > > It might be very convenient to have what one might call EVERP, where the
> > > recipient address is encrypted into the envelope sender address
I love a recursive solution. ;-}
Kirke Johnson Internet: kjohn...@pcc.edu
Email Administrator, TSS , Sylvania Campus
Portland Community College, Portland, OR, USA (971) 722-4368
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> The irony is not lo
Brad Knowles writes:
> On Jun 18, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
>
> > It might be very convenient to have what one might call EVERP, where the
> > recipient address is encrypted into the envelope sender address, as an
> > alternative choice to Mailman's VERP implementation.
It's
David writes:
> In terms of privacy, as list admins we already have the member's
> information. All we are doing in this case is helping that member stop
> receiving messages they obviously no longer wish to receive. This is
> clearly not an invasion of privacy (especially with a properly encr
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 17:58 -0500, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> FWIW, pursuant to Stephen's comments re. using encryption rather than
> hashing for passing recipient addresses in headers, I've attached a
> short Python script which puts short strings of data, such as an email
> address, into an AES cip
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 14:59 -0400, David wrote:
> In terms of privacy, as list admins we already have the member's
> information. All we are doing in this case is helping that member stop
> receiving messages they obviously no longer wish to receive. This is
> clearly not an invasion of privacy (es
Lindsay Haisley schrieb:
> So what would be the implications of hacking an extra header into
> outgoing posts on lists for which personalization is enabled, say
> "X-Subdata", with said header containing a hash of the subscriber
> address to which the post is directed?
AOL ist actually recommendi
On Jun 18, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Larry Stone wrote:
> And the problem that I'm trying to fix is that their user has violated MY TOS
> regarding reporting list mail (that they subscribed to) as spam. That AOL
> sent their Feedback Loop message to me is therefore part of the violation of
> my terms.
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 12:05 -0700, Brad Knowles wrote:
> Uh, trust me -- you really don't want to get into the discussion of
> creating new SMTP protocol enhancements. I was on the DRUMS WG. You
> really, really don't want to go there.
>
VERP is not an SMTP protocol, but a MTA property supported
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012, Brad Knowles wrote:
In fact, when you sign up for the AOL Feedback Loop (as I did years ago
for the lists hosted at python.org), the instructions explicitly state
that you may not use any information they give you to determine who the
affected user is -- they're simply tel
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 13:04 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> > On 2012-06-18 12:22 PM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> > > Doing this as a custom hack helps. If this were implemented as a
> > > Mailman standard option then word might indeed get back to
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 13:04 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2012-06-18 12:22 PM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> > Doing this as a custom hack helps. If this were implemented as a
> > Mailman standard option then word might indeed get back to them about
> > it. Using Resent-Message-ID as a header name is
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 02:11 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Lindsay Haisley writes:
> > Why would, say, hashlib.md5(recip).hexdigest() be any more or less
> > detectable than a reversible encryption?
>
> Because once the idea becomes public, anybody can check the nonesense
> strings in your
Lindsay Haisley writes:
> Good suggestion. I assume that Mailman never inserts
> "Resent-Message-ID" into posts, is that correct?
Currently it doesn't, it seems, but there have been proposals to make
it do so (related to DKIM IIRC). However, if and when it does, it
wouldn't hurt to add your o
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 10:01 -0700, Brad Knowles wrote:
> > IMHO, AOL's days on this planet are numbered. They'll go the way of
> > Compuserve :)
>
> You mean that they'll get bought -- by AOL? ;-)
>
The irony is not lost :) The snake eats itself tail-first until it
disappears.
They'll probabl
On 2012-06-18 12:22 PM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
Doing this as a custom hack helps. If this were implemented as a
Mailman standard option then word might indeed get back to them about
it. Using Resent-Message-ID as a header name is a clever idea.
I'd also argue that since this is not AOL speci
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 17:03 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Lindsay Haisley writes:
>
> > So what would be the implications of hacking an extra header into
> > outgoing posts on lists for which personalization is enabled, say
> > "X-Subdata", with said header containing a hash of the subscr
Lindsay Haisley writes:
> So what would be the implications of hacking an extra header into
> outgoing posts on lists for which personalization is enabled, say
> "X-Subdata", with said header containing a hash of the subscriber
> address to which the post is directed?
I would use Resent-Messa
On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 20:40 -0700, Brad Knowles wrote:
> You could do this, but the question is whether or not that header
> would survive through to the complaint you get via their feedback
> loop. I doubt that it would, but there's only one way to know for
> sure.
>
My observation has been that
On Jun 17, 2012, at 7:27 AM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> So what would be the implications of hacking an extra header into
> outgoing posts on lists for which personalization is enabled, say
> "X-Subdata", with said header containing a hash of the subscriber
> address to which the post is directed?
On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 06:34 -0700, Brad Knowles wrote:
> I can tell you the reasons that management gave at the time I was
> working there -- it was all about the privacy of their user. They
> said that they wanted to protect the privacy of the person who was
> complaining.
>
So what would be the
On Jun 16, 2012, at 9:58 PM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> I have no idea why AOL wants to make it difficult for list
> administrators to unsubscribe people who don't want to be subscribed and
> who complain to AOL about list posts being spam.
I can tell you the reasons that management gave at the tim
I have no idea why AOL wants to make it difficult for list
administrators to unsubscribe people who don't want to be subscribed and
who complain to AOL about list posts being spam. The only explanations
that come to mind are very sinister ones, but given the way things are
going these days, it may
I have no idea why AOL wants to make it difficult for list
administrators to unsubscribe people who don't want to be subscribed and
who complain to AOL about list posts being spam. The only explanations
that come to mind are very sinister ones, but given the way things are
going these days, it may
We are getting pretty frustrated with AOL. Their feedback report redacts
addresses, so we enabled VERP and full personalization so the "envelope"
can send us the actual address. No good:
Return-Path:
To: redac...@aol.com
Errors-To: all-bounces+redacted=aol@discuss.fiteyes.com
Sender: all-bou
54 matches
Mail list logo
