Read this entire thread on -users for background info, but basically there appears to be a bug in tmda-cgi which causes the wrong address to be appended to the CONFIRM_APPEND file. The X-Primary-Address header is not being honored, so the Return-Path address is appended.
The user doesn't have this problem when confirming via e-mail. -------------------- Start of forwarded message -------------------- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:30:17 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Jeff Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Whitelist still filling up with dated addresses... On Thursday, Dec 4, 2003, at 11:53 US/Mountain, Jason R. Mastaler wrote: > Jeff Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> All the above is just to say "I don't know" to your question above. >> I hope I haven't muddied the waters too much with this other issue > > Let's deal with one issue at a time here. > > Comment out the 'drop' line or do whatever you have to do to receive > the confirmation message, and then reply to it, and see if it produces > the same results as with tmda-cgi (the wrong address being appended to > CONFIRM_APPEND). > _____________________________________________ > tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users > > Sorry for being dense. I should have done this automatically. I commented out the drop line, sent a mail to tmdatest, replied to the confirmation message and voila! Date: Thu Dec 4 11:57:25 MST 2003 XPri: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sndr: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Jeff Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Test message without bounce drop Actn: CONFIRM action_incoming (864) Date: Thu Dec 4 11:57:25 MST 2003 XPri: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sndr: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Jeff Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Test message without bounce drop Actn: CONFIRM pending 1070564267.6298.msg (864) Date: Thu Dec 4 11:59:20 MST 2003 XPri: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sndr: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Jeff Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rept: Jeff Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Actn: CONFIRM accept 1070564267.6298.msg (961) Date: Thu Dec 4 11:59:20 MST 2003 XPri: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sndr: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Jeff Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rept: Jeff Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Actn: CONFIRM_APPEND /home/tmdatest/.tmda/lists/whitelist (961) Date: Thu Dec 4 11:59:27 MST 2003 XPri: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sndr: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Jeff Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Test message without bounce drop Actn: OK good_confirm_done_cookie (1066) The correct address IS appended to the tmdatest whitelist: [EMAIL PROTECTED] $ cat .tmda/lists/whitelist [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, what I've been seeing is the drop from [EMAIL PROTECTED] rule forcing release through TMDA-cgi and that is what's causing the dated addresses to be inserted in the whitelists? Would it maybe be a better idea to use a different "drop" address for each user? Just thinking as I write here, I'm wondering if I used a drop rule based on each individual's e-mail address? I already (as do you) tell people not to whitelist their own e-mail address. I wonder how much of a problem it would be to use BOUNCE_ENV_SENDER = "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" from [EMAIL PROTECTED] drop in my individual config file? I can pretty easily modify my new_user script to do this, if it is a workable idea. Thanks again, Jason! Jeff -- Jeff Ross Open Vistas Networking, Inc. http://www.openvistas.net _____________________________________________ tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users -------------------- End of forwarded message -------------------- _________________________________________________ tmda-workers mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
