On Sat 10/Feb/2024 13:10:19 +0100 Archange via mailop wrote:
Le 10 février 2024 15:12:29 GMT+04:00, Hal Murray via mailop
a écrit :
I was picturing something like:
user goes to final MTA and says I want you to accept forwarded mail for me
from example.com
then he goes to example.com
On 12.02.24 21:21, Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
The mail server providing the redirection may not be doing what the original
address owner OR the owner of the address to which they are redirecting
actually wants. Redirection could allow malicious server operators to direct
3rd parties to
On 2024-02-12 at 14:23:39 UTC-0500 (Mon, 12 Feb 2024 20:23:39 +0100)
Thomas Walter via mailop
is rumored to have said:
> Hey Bill,
>
> On 12.02.24 17:31, Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
>> On 2024-02-12 at 07:13:13 UTC-0500 (Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:13:13 +0100)
>> Thomas Walter via mailop
>> is rumored
Hey Bill,
On 12.02.24 17:31, Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
On 2024-02-12 at 07:13:13 UTC-0500 (Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:13:13 +0100)
Thomas Walter via mailop
is rumored to have said:
There are other issues with this though. For example you are exposing
information you might not want to.
Beyond
On 2024-02-12 at 07:13:13 UTC-0500 (Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:13:13 +0100)
Thomas Walter via mailop
is rumored to have said:
> There are other issues with this though. For example you are exposing
> information you might not want to.
Beyond that, it would enable both malicious reflection attacks and
On 12.02.24 11:59, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
Dnia 11.02.2024 o godz. 00:10:54 Thomas Walter via mailop pisze:
Remember when we had an SMTP status code 551?
551 User not local; please try
Would be an ideal solution if sending SMTP servers would actually react to
it like web browsers
Dnia 11.02.2024 o godz. 00:10:54 Thomas Walter via mailop pisze:
> Remember when we had an SMTP status code 551?
>
> 551 User not local; please try
Would be an ideal solution if sending SMTP servers would actually react to
it like web browsers react to HTTP 301 or 302 status code, ie.
Dnia 10.02.2024 o godz. 07:52:43 Sebastian Nielsen via mailop pisze:
> Try it yourself in your email software.
> Click Forward.
> Sending this email will basically rewrite the headers and add Fwd: into
> subject.
>
> You can also click "Forward as an attachment", which will forward the
> original
Dnia 10.02.2024 o godz. 12:42:36 L. Mark Stone via mailop pisze:
> 1. We have trained our Zimbra users who want their email to be copied
> someplace else to configure the someplace else to log in and collect their
> email from Zimbra, after having educated them that Forwarding is
> problematic and
Remember when we had an SMTP status code 551?
551 User not local; please try
Pepperidge Farm remembers.
SCNR,
Thomas Walter
--
Thomas Walter
Datenverarbeitungszentrale
FH Münster
- University of Applied Sciences -
Corrensstr. 25, Raum B 112
48149 Münster
Tel: +49 251 83 64 908
Fax: +49
>>To me this seems "fairer" than wrapping the message alone, because the
>>forwarding server now takes on the burden of the reputation hit for that
>>message. >>Eventually, enough viagra messages will be forwarded that the
>>forwarder can't get any mail delivered anywhere.
That’s on the
You have a good point in that the first and main problem is that the
forwarder cannot be trusted to not mangle or fake the original message.
Nothing else can be sorted out until this gets out of the way, including
OOB communication between originator and final receiver. Which is in
effect
l Murray" , "Hal Murray via mailop"
, "Marco Moock"
Cc: "mailop"
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2024 7:10:19 AM
Subject: Re: [mailop] Why is mail forwarding such a mess?
Le 10 février 2024 15:12:29 GMT+04:00, Hal Murray via mailop
a écrit :
>
>m...@dorfds
Le 10 février 2024 15:12:29 GMT+04:00, Hal Murray via mailop
a écrit :
>
>m...@dorfdsl.de said:
>> Bypassing spam checking would make spammers use exactly that way to send
>> spam.
>
>Sorry I wasn't clear enough.
>
>My "handshke to set things up" was meant to keep out spammers.
>
>The idea
m...@dorfdsl.de said:
> Bypassing spam checking would make spammers use exactly that way to send
> spam.
Sorry I wasn't clear enough.
My "handshke to set things up" was meant to keep out spammers.
The idea was that the final receiving MTA would know that it was expecting
forwarded mail for
orwarder's point of view
(authentication headers and similar).
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Hal Murray via mailop
Skickat: den 10 februari 2024 07:26
Till: mailop@mailop.org
Kopia: Hal Murray
Ämne: [mailop] Why is mail forwarding such a mess?
I expect that there would be a protocol
Am Fri, 09 Feb 2024 22:09:45 -0800
schrieb Hal Murray via mailop :
> I expect that there would be a protocol to handle it. I can't be the
> only one who has thought of this. After a handshke to set things up,
> the sender adds a forwarding header and the receiver verifies that a
> forwarded
I expect that there would be a protocol to handle it. I can't be the only one
who has thought of this. After a handshke to set things up, the sender adds a
forwarding header and the receiver verifies that a forwarded message is coming
from an allowed IP Address then bypasses spam checking
18 matches
Mail list logo
