Re: [Bacula-users] thannyd earthlink.net
James Harper wrote: Dan Langille wrote: This is standard practice on this list. If you wish to participate, please ensure you account for this practice. You may see it as standard practice, but it's certainly not encouraged practice, and probably only a handful of users do it that way (i.e. wrongly). Some people lazily hit reply all and don't bother to check what they are doing. I admit I've done it myself on occasion, either through haste or forgetfulness or distraction, but I do at least __try__ to do it properly! I hit reply-all all the time. What MTA are you using that can't sort out duplicates for you? I see you hit Reply All then, just to prove the point :-) I also see that you use an email program that can't sort out quotes and attributions correctly (I'm not attributed above, and one line of my text is wrongly quoted with a single arrow rather than 2) :-) My MTA (postfix) does sort out duplicates. By using reply all, you are sending 2 messages over the internet rather than one, which is just as bad as sending html email or sending spam? :-) The reason I use reply-all is that the sender is not necessarily going to receive a copy in their inbox otherwise. They may be subscribed in 'digest' mode, or may have their subscription configured to not receive a copy at all, which allows them to post and then read the messages via the archives. I imagine that wouldn't be an uncommon configuration either - say you were responsible for a server running Xen, also running Debian, using Bacula for backups, Apache as a web server, MySQL as a database, and PHP as a scripting engine, and occasionally asked questions on those mailing lists when the need arose. You'd spend half of your day just processing email if you actually received all of those lists into your inbox! If someone subscribes to a mailing list and sends a mail they want to see a reply to, then it's up to them to ensure that they have a setup that allows them to see those replies, surely. It's not MY responsibility you ensure that YOU receive my email, it's yours. -- Mike Holden -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] thannyd earthlink.net
Chris Hoogendyk wrote: Mike Holden wrote: Eric J. Wisti wrote: That still doesn't make the Please verify messages any more friendly. What if someone forges my email address and sends you a spam. I get a Please verify message, but I had nothing to do with the email that was sent, other than being a victim of an email forgery. Now, I also get a nice Please Verify message. These systems may have been a ok workaround before, but now that spam is some 94% of email is spam, all it does is increase the amount of spam, and involve people who may not even be connected with the emails you receive. Welcome to the 2009 internet mate! We're all fed up of spam, but until the ISPs get their fingers out collectively and block junk at source, we're stuck with it. If someone forges your email address to send spam, then you will still get any bounces back anyway if the victim email addresses fail (unknown email address, quota exceeded etc). A fair percentage of the spam I receive is bounce messages from spam sent on my behalf (i.e. spoofed From address) to invalid email addresses. I grant you that a lot of improperly configured mail servers will create such bounce back. However, a properly configured mail server won't accept that email in the first place. It will get a message back to the connecting server indicating unknown email address or whatever, rather than accept the message and end up having to reply back to a potentially forged return address. Unfortunately, it's not that easy. There are two (somewhat) legitimate reasons why many mail servers are configured the way you describe as improperly configured. One is that the mail server may be Microsoft Exchange. Exchange will always accept emails to the locally hosted domain, and only at a later stage of processing determine whether it is deliverable or not. It may well be a misfeature of Exchange, but given how popular it is as a mail server, it's hard to argue that they are all improperly configured. The second reason is that you may have some kind of front-end relay server that simply does not know all the recipients on the final server. That said, I, too, find these please verify messages exceedingly rude; I usually tend to instead not communicate with that person. Fortunately, it seems that these please verify messages are mostly a thing of the 1999 Internet. This discussion is the first time I have seen it still being alive in a very long time. -- Kevin Keane Owner The NetTech Find the Uncommon: Expert Solutions for a Network You Never Have to Think About Office: 866-642-7116 http://www.4nettech.com This e-mail and attachments, if any, may contain confidential and/or proprietary information. Please be advised that the unauthorized use or disclosure of the information is strictly prohibited. The information herein is intended only for use by the intended recipient(s) named above. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the e-mail and any copies, printouts or attachments thereof. -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] thannyd earthlink.net
I grant you that a lot of improperly configured mail servers will create such bounce back. However, a properly configured mail server won't accept that email in the first place. It will get a message back to the connecting server indicating unknown email address or whatever, rather than accept the message and end up having to reply back to a potentially forged return address. Unfortunately, it's not that easy. There are two (somewhat) legitimate reasons why many mail servers are configured the way you describe as improperly configured. One is that the mail server may be Microsoft Exchange. Exchange will always accept emails to the locally hosted domain, and only at a later stage of processing determine whether it is deliverable or not. It may well be a misfeature of Exchange, but given how popular it is as a mail server, it's hard to argue that they are all improperly configured. You are speaking of Exchange 2000. Exchange 2003 has no such limitation. James -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] thannyd earthlink.net
On 04/05/2009 19:11, Dan Langille wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Please do not make your spam problem *our* spam problem. There are better ways to handle this. Please do not expect every person on this mailing list to fill out this webform every time they post to the list. No one has to do any such thing to post to this list. You're getting that because you're writing a message directly to me, not the list. That you routinely write both to the original sender and the list is not my problem. Something I would have been happy to explain privately, but insist on explaining publicly because you've posted the above to the list. -- ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] thannyd earthlink.net
That still doesn't make the Please verify messages any more friendly. What if someone forges my email address and sends you a spam. I get a Please verify message, but I had nothing to do with the email that was sent, other than being a victim of an email forgery. Now, I also get a nice Please Verify message. These systems may have been a ok workaround before, but now that spam is some 94% of email is spam, all it does is increase the amount of spam, and involve people who may not even be connected with the emails you receive. Eric PS. I didn't send this directly to you, to avoid having to respond to a verify message. On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Mike Ruskai wrote: Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:54:18 -0400 From: Mike Ruskai than...@earthlink.net Cc: bacula-users bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] thannyd earthlink.net On 04/05/2009 19:11, Dan Langille wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Please do not make your spam problem *our* spam problem. There are better ways to handle this. Please do not expect every person on this mailing list to fill out this webform every time they post to the list. No one has to do any such thing to post to this list. You're getting that because you're writing a message directly to me, not the list. That you routinely write both to the original sender and the list is not my problem. Something I would have been happy to explain privately, but insist on explaining publicly because you've posted the above to the list. -- ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users -- ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] thannyd earthlink.net
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:54:18 +0200, Mike Ruskai than...@earthlink.net wrote: On 04/05/2009 19:11, Dan Langille wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Please do not make your spam problem *our* spam problem. There are better ways to handle this. Please do not expect every person on this mailing list to fill out this webform every time they post to the list. No one has to do any such thing to post to this list. You're getting that because you're writing a message directly to me, not the list. That you routinely write both to the original sender and the list is not my problem. Something I would have been happy to explain privately, but insist on explaining publicly because you've posted the above to the list. Pwned :) (sorry, couldn't resist, no offence etc. :) -- ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] thannyd earthlink.net
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Eric J. Wisti wrote: That still doesn't make the Please verify messages any more friendly. What if someone forges my email address and sends you a spam. I get a Please verify message, but I had nothing to do with the email that was sent, other than being a victim of an email forgery. Now, I also get a nice Please Verify message. These systems may have been a ok workaround before, but now that spam is some 94% of email is spam, all it does is increase the amount of spam, and involve people who may not even be connected with the emails you receive. Eric PS. I didn't send this directly to you, to avoid having to respond to a verify message. On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Mike Ruskai wrote: Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:54:18 -0400 From: Mike Ruskai than...@earthlink.net Cc: bacula-users bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] thannyd earthlink.net On 04/05/2009 19:11, Dan Langille wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Please do not make your spam problem *our* spam problem. There are better ways to handle this. Please do not expect every person on this mailing list to fill out this webform every time they post to the list. No one has to do any such thing to post to this list. You're getting that because you're writing a message directly to me, not the list. That you routinely write both to the original sender and the list is not my problem. This is standard practice on this list. If you wish to participate, please ensure you account for this practice. Something I would have been happy to explain privately, but insist on explaining publicly because you've posted the above to the list. To do so, I would have had to fill out your form. Sorry, your spam problem should not become our spam problem. - -- Dan Langille BSDCan - The Technical BSD Conference : http://www.bsdcan.org/ PGCon - The PostgreSQL Conference: http://www.pgcon.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAknaJmwACgkQCgsXFM/7nTxjoACg8l26UpQ+tazkgj1o0tasPz/z 8W0AoK7hwjgsigV/zNHoKTts++dF9dI/ =J4ck -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] thannyd earthlink.net
Dan Langille wrote: This is standard practice on this list. If you wish to participate, please ensure you account for this practice. You may see it as standard practice, but it's certainly not encouraged practice, and probably only a handful of users do it that way (i.e. wrongly). Some people lazily hit reply all and don't bother to check what they are doing. I admit I've done it myself on occasion, either through haste or forgetfulness or distraction, but I do at least __try__ to do it properly! If I subscribe to an email list, I don't need anyone to send me a personal copy of an email they are sending to the list, because I just end up with 2 copies of it. -- Mike Holden http://www.by-ang.com - the place to shop for all manner of hand crafted items, including Jewellery, Greetings Cards and Gifts -- ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] thannyd earthlink.net
If I subscribe to an email list, I don't need anyone to send me a personal copy of an email they are sending to the list, because I just end up with 2 copies of it. That is one reason I use gmail. I never get 2 copies of the same exact message. John -- ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] thannyd earthlink.net
Mike Holden wrote: Eric J. Wisti wrote: That still doesn't make the Please verify messages any more friendly. What if someone forges my email address and sends you a spam. I get a Please verify message, but I had nothing to do with the email that was sent, other than being a victim of an email forgery. Now, I also get a nice Please Verify message. These systems may have been a ok workaround before, but now that spam is some 94% of email is spam, all it does is increase the amount of spam, and involve people who may not even be connected with the emails you receive. Welcome to the 2009 internet mate! We're all fed up of spam, but until the ISPs get their fingers out collectively and block junk at source, we're stuck with it. If someone forges your email address to send spam, then you will still get any bounces back anyway if the victim email addresses fail (unknown email address, quota exceeded etc). A fair percentage of the spam I receive is bounce messages from spam sent on my behalf (i.e. spoofed From address) to invalid email addresses. I grant you that a lot of improperly configured mail servers will create such bounce back. However, a properly configured mail server won't accept that email in the first place. It will get a message back to the connecting server indicating unknown email address or whatever, rather than accept the message and end up having to reply back to a potentially forged return address. A fairly old known attack method is to identify a pool of such misconfigured mail servers and then bomb them all with a forged return address of the person you want to hit with a DOS. It's called joe jobbing someone -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_job. Not a lot I can do about it, unfortunately. I do try to not lose sleep about it though :-) In general, true. But, for those of you who manage mail servers, make sure they don't create backscatter. And, if your ISP has a mail server that does this, give them a hard time. It might have a small impact. -- --- Chris Hoogendyk - O__ Systems Administrator c/ /'_ --- Biology Geology Departments (*) \(*) -- 140 Morrill Science Center ~~ - University of Massachusetts, Amherst hoogen...@bio.umass.edu --- Erdös 4 -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] thannyd earthlink.net
Dan Langille wrote: This is standard practice on this list. If you wish to participate, please ensure you account for this practice. You may see it as standard practice, but it's certainly not encouraged practice, and probably only a handful of users do it that way (i.e. wrongly). Some people lazily hit reply all and don't bother to check what they are doing. I admit I've done it myself on occasion, either through haste or forgetfulness or distraction, but I do at least __try__ to do it properly! I hit reply-all all the time. What MTA are you using that can't sort out duplicates for you? The reason I use reply-all is that the sender is not necessarily going to receive a copy in their inbox otherwise. They may be subscribed in 'digest' mode, or may have their subscription configured to not receive a copy at all, which allows them to post and then read the messages via the archives. I imagine that wouldn't be an uncommon configuration either - say you were responsible for a server running Xen, also running Debian, using Bacula for backups, Apache as a web server, MySQL as a database, and PHP as a scripting engine, and occasionally asked questions on those mailing lists when the need arose. You'd spend half of your day just processing email if you actually received all of those lists into your inbox! James -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
