Administrivia.
Anyone else who has stupid broken autoresponders that send crap _anywhere_ but the SMTP reverse-path, save me the trouble and unsubscribe from the list now.
--
dwmw2
Quoted 3 lines · David Woodhouse
Anyone else who has stupid broken autoresponders that send crap _anywhere_ but the SMTP reverse-path, save me the trouble and unsubscribe from the list now.
That would be [email protected], right? You prefer to receive crap rather than having it sent back to the originator?
At least tell us what kind of crap you've seen...
Regards, Richard.... Permanent: [email protected] Current: [email protected]
Quoted 2 lines · [email protected] said:
That would be [email protected], right? You prefer
to receive crap rather than having it sent back to the originator?
It would. I'm perfectly capable of removing crap from my inbox - I object to it getting sent to my lists.
Quoted 1 line
At least tell us what kind of crap you've seen...
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2002-March/004413.html
--
dwmw2
Quoted 7 lines · David Woodhouse
Quoted 2 lines · [email protected] said:
That would be [email protected], right? You prefer
to receive crap rather than having it sent back to the originator?It would. I'm perfectly capable of removing crap from my inbox - I object to it getting sent to my lists.
Hm. I note that formail tends to look at the From: address, which IMHO is the correct thing to do.
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
At least tell us what kind of crap you've seen...
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2002-March/004413.html
Huh? This virus scanner is looking at the To: address?!?
Regards, Richard.... Permanent: [email protected] Current: [email protected]
Quoted 2 lines · [email protected] said:
Hm. I note that formail tends to look at the From: address, which
IMHO is the correct thing to do.
No. The From address is not the SMTP reverse-path. This message, for example, has a From address [email protected] but the SMTP reverse-path, to which errors should go, is [email protected]. (Unless it goes through the list, in which case the reverse-path gets changed to linux-mtd-admin@, so that errors in list delivery go to the list admin, not the original sender.)
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
At least tell us what kind of crap you've seen... >
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2002-March/004413.html
Huh? This virus scanner is looking at the To: address?!?
Or something equally stupid. Hence abuse@ their ISP getting CC'd on the complaint.
--
dwmw2
Quoted 11 lines · David Woodhouse
Quoted 2 lines · [email protected] said:
Hm. I note that formail tends to look at the From: address, which
IMHO is the correct thing to do.No. The From address is not the SMTP reverse-path. This message, for example, has a From address [email protected] but the SMTP reverse-path, to which errors should go, is [email protected]. (Unless it goes through the list, in which case the reverse-path gets changed to linux-mtd-admin@, so that errors in list delivery go to the list admin, not the original sender.)
Um, let me be more clear. If I want to bounce emails which, say, have a high proportion of high-bit characters (guess why:-), I want them to go to the From: address (i.e. the original sender), not the list administrator. I think that's a good thing, since I want to apply the clue-by-four to the sender, and not the list admin.
And formail looks at the From: address nicely, just the way I like it :-)
Regards, Richard.... Permanent: [email protected] Current: [email protected]
Quoted 8 lines · [email protected] said:
Um, let me be more clear. If I want to bounce emails which, say, have
a high proportion of high-bit characters (guess why:-), I want them to go to the From: address (i.e. the original sender), not the list administrator. I think that's a good thing, since I want to apply the clue-by-four to the sender, and not the list admin.And formail looks at the From: address nicely, just the way I like it :-)
In that case, it makes some sense, yes. Unless you also obey Reply-To and encounter a list which stupidly sets the Reply-To header to go back to the list - another common combination of idiocies.
As long as you don't respond to messages with _NULL_ reverse-path (i.e. error messages), that is.
--
dwmw2
Quoted 8 lines · David Woodhouse
Quoted 5 lines · [email protected] said:
Um, let me be more clear. If I want to bounce emails which, say, have
a high proportion of high-bit characters (guess why:-), I want them to go to the From: address (i.e. the original sender), not the list administrator. I think that's a good thing, since I want to apply the clue-by-four to the sender, and not the list admin.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
And formail looks at the From: address nicely, just the way I like it :-)
In that case, it makes some sense, yes. Unless you also obey Reply-To and encounter a list which stupidly sets the Reply-To header to go back to the list - another common combination of idiocies.
Yeah, stupid Reply-To: set by some arrogant list administrators (XFree86 and ISC, to name two). The hardline approach is: tough. But there is an easy solution to that as well:
| sed -e 's/^Reply-To:.*@isc\.org/Bogus-&/'
Quoted 2 lines
As long as you don't respond to messages with _NULL_ reverse-path (i.e. error messages), that is.
Hm. Never tried that. Not sure what happens, but I suspect the auto-reply would be bounced back. That's harmless (easy to filter to /dev/null).
Regards, Richard.... Permanent: [email protected] Current: [email protected]