[Mailman-Users] Re: illegal BOM
On 2/4/22 11:01, Russell Clemings wrote: For cPanel, this looks relevant, assuming you have root privileges: https://forums.cpanel.net/threads/how-to-remove-x-ham-report-from-message-header.636153/post-2597865 That's for exim. For Postfix, there's /^X-Ham-Report:/ IGNORE in /etc/postfix/header_checks (ignorecase is the default, don't use the `i` flag) It shouldn't be overwritten on a Mailman update, whereas I think hacking Cleanse.py would be. You're unlikely to see any future Mailman 2.1 updates for any OS distros. Debian has already dropped Mailman 2.1 from bullseye and sid. And if you're upgrading from source, you probably know how to reapply local patches. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan -- Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/
[Mailman-Users] Re: illegal BOM
For cPanel, this looks relevant, assuming you have root privileges: https://forums.cpanel.net/threads/how-to-remove-x-ham-report-from-message-header.636153/post-2597865 It shouldn't be overwritten on a Mailman update, whereas I think hacking Cleanse.py would be. On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 4:17 AM Stephen J. Turnbull < stephenjturnb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Executive summary: > > - There is a BOM in the X-Ham-Report header field. > - There is reason to believe that it, and not just any non-ASCII, > triggered this rejection. > - Disabling the X-Ham-Report field (and possibly an X-Spam-Report > field) seems to be the best option. > > Christian via Mailman-Users writes in an earlier message: > > > Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 Headers contain illegal byte order mark (BOM) > > and now: > > > Hello Mark Sapiro. On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 14:31:11 -0800, you wrote: > > > > >>> X-Ham-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system > > >>> "crift.digimouse.eu", has NOT identified this incoming email as > > >>> spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can > view > > >>> it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see > > >>> root\@localhost for details. Content preview: systemerweiterungen, > > >>> benutzer, dein account, startobjekte: ist da noch was drin? Jean-Luc > > >>> Aeby CH-4052 Basel > Am 03.02.2022 um 09:05 schrieb Max > Röthlisberger > > In the line above there is a SMALL LATIN LETTER O WITH UMLAUT (U+00F6) > which gets no complaint. > > > >>> Mus : > > Guten Morgen zusammen > > Mein MacBook > Pro, > > In this line, immediately before "Guten Morgen" there is a ZERO-WIDTH > NO-BREAK SPACE (ZWNBSP, U+FEFF) aka "byte order mark" or BOM. I'm > satisfied that the error above really is complaining about the ZWNBSP, > and not random non-ASCII. I conclude that the spam milter used a > proper content transfer encoding for the X-Ham-Report header field. > > ZWNBSP is now deprecated in favor of WORD JOINER (WJ, U+2060), but > conforming implementations should support both with identical > semantics, except as the first character where ZWNBSP has BOM > semantics and WJ is just a PITA. > > > >>> OS 10.11.6 sucht zu Hause nach einem Neustart 4 - 5 > mal im > Heimnetz > > >>> den ? [...] Content analysis details: (-0.0 points, 4.0 required) > > > > This is the only header in the message that looks suspicious. I > > > suspect the `?` characters are actually non-ascii characters in an > > > unencoded header and that's the problem. I think whatever is adding > > I suspect it's not unencoded, since it's very specific about the BOM, > and the BOM is not the first non-ASCII character in that field. I > don't think this is a non-ASCII problem, I believe it's BOM-specific. > > It appears to be the first character in body of the message quoted, > and ends up in the middle of the body of the message rejected. I > guess the original source is a broken MUA that delegates editing the > body to an editor that prepends a BOM to all Unicode files (probably > including UTF-8, which is severely deprecated). Then it copies that > file including BOM into the message after the CRLFCRLF that separates > the header from the body. > > This really doesn't hurt anybody because of the way mail is parsed. > IMO the real culprit here is the excessively strict MTAs that are > apparently decoding that header field and examining it for merely > deprecated features of Unicode, and rejecting on that basis. But > you're not going to get that fixed at other people's sites. > > > > this header (SpamExperts ?) is the root of the problem. If this can > > > be configured to not add that X-Ham-Report: header, that may solve > > > the issue. > > > I’ll contact the provider whether it is possible to switch off the > > spam detection software for our lists. > > You probably don't want to do that, though. Even if you trust your > posters, there's no reason to suppose one couldn't get hacked. > > > > Or, you could patch > > > > https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mailman-coders/mailman/2.1/view/head:/Mailman/Handlers/Cleanse.py#L62 > > > and add > > > ``` > > > del msg['X-Ham-Report'] > > > ``` > > > to have Mailman remove it. That may help. > > I recommend this instead. I guess that in the case of spam there > might also be an X-Spam-Report header field. Depending on under what > circumstances you block Spam, you may want to disable that as well. > > Steve > > -- > Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org > To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ > Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 > Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 > Searchable Archives: > https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/ > -- ===
[Mailman-Users] Re: illegal BOM
Executive summary: - There is a BOM in the X-Ham-Report header field. - There is reason to believe that it, and not just any non-ASCII, triggered this rejection. - Disabling the X-Ham-Report field (and possibly an X-Spam-Report field) seems to be the best option. Christian via Mailman-Users writes in an earlier message: > Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 Headers contain illegal byte order mark (BOM) and now: > Hello Mark Sapiro. On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 14:31:11 -0800, you wrote: > > >>> X-Ham-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system > >>> "crift.digimouse.eu", has NOT identified this incoming email as > >>> spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view > >>> it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see > >>> root\@localhost for details. Content preview: systemerweiterungen, > >>> benutzer, dein account, startobjekte: ist da noch was drin? Jean-Luc > >>> Aeby CH-4052 Basel > Am 03.02.2022 um 09:05 schrieb Max Röthlisberger In the line above there is a SMALL LATIN LETTER O WITH UMLAUT (U+00F6) which gets no complaint. > >>> Mus : > > Guten Morgen zusammen > > Mein MacBook Pro, In this line, immediately before "Guten Morgen" there is a ZERO-WIDTH NO-BREAK SPACE (ZWNBSP, U+FEFF) aka "byte order mark" or BOM. I'm satisfied that the error above really is complaining about the ZWNBSP, and not random non-ASCII. I conclude that the spam milter used a proper content transfer encoding for the X-Ham-Report header field. ZWNBSP is now deprecated in favor of WORD JOINER (WJ, U+2060), but conforming implementations should support both with identical semantics, except as the first character where ZWNBSP has BOM semantics and WJ is just a PITA. > >>> OS 10.11.6 sucht zu Hause nach einem Neustart 4 - 5 > mal im Heimnetz > >>> den ? [...] Content analysis details: (-0.0 points, 4.0 required) > > This is the only header in the message that looks suspicious. I > > suspect the `?` characters are actually non-ascii characters in an > > unencoded header and that's the problem. I think whatever is adding I suspect it's not unencoded, since it's very specific about the BOM, and the BOM is not the first non-ASCII character in that field. I don't think this is a non-ASCII problem, I believe it's BOM-specific. It appears to be the first character in body of the message quoted, and ends up in the middle of the body of the message rejected. I guess the original source is a broken MUA that delegates editing the body to an editor that prepends a BOM to all Unicode files (probably including UTF-8, which is severely deprecated). Then it copies that file including BOM into the message after the CRLFCRLF that separates the header from the body. This really doesn't hurt anybody because of the way mail is parsed. IMO the real culprit here is the excessively strict MTAs that are apparently decoding that header field and examining it for merely deprecated features of Unicode, and rejecting on that basis. But you're not going to get that fixed at other people's sites. > > this header (SpamExperts ?) is the root of the problem. If this can > > be configured to not add that X-Ham-Report: header, that may solve > > the issue. > I’ll contact the provider whether it is possible to switch off the > spam detection software for our lists. You probably don't want to do that, though. Even if you trust your posters, there's no reason to suppose one couldn't get hacked. > > Or, you could patch > > https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mailman-coders/mailman/2.1/view/head:/Mailman/Handlers/Cleanse.py#L62 > > > > and add > > ``` > > del msg['X-Ham-Report'] > > ``` > > to have Mailman remove it. That may help. I recommend this instead. I guess that in the case of spam there might also be an X-Spam-Report header field. Depending on under what circumstances you block Spam, you may want to disable that as well. Steve -- Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/
[Mailman-Users] Re: illegal BOM
On 2022-02-03 4:47 PM, Christian via Mailman-Users wrote: Hello Mark Sapiro. On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 14:31:11 -0800, you wrote: ... This is the only header in the message that looks suspicious. I suspect the `?` characters are actually non-ascii characters in an unencoded header and that's the problem. ... Ah, I see - the ? in this part: " den ? [...] Content analysis details" seems to replace a curly quote. I’ll contact the provider whether it is possible to switch off the spam detection software for our lists. It sounds like another Mac OSX "smart quotes" problem. The only known "proper" fix is to contact the poster and tell them to reconfigure all their text editing software (and the mailer) to not use "smart quotes", "typographer's quotes", and/or whatever they may be called in that particular OSX version. :( Dima -- Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/
[Mailman-Users] Re: illegal BOM
Hello Mark Sapiro. On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 14:31:11 -0800, you wrote: >>> X-Ham-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system >>> "crift.digimouse.eu", has NOT identified this incoming email as >>> spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view >>> it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see >>> root\@localhost for details. Content preview: systemerweiterungen, >>> benutzer, dein account, startobjekte: ist da noch was drin? Jean-Luc >>> Aeby CH-4052 Basel > Am 03.02.2022 um 09:05 schrieb Max Röthlisberger >>> Mus : > > Guten Morgen zusammen > > Mein MacBook Pro, >>> OS 10.11.6 sucht zu Hause nach einem Neustart 4 - 5 > mal im Heimnetz >>> den ? [...] Content analysis details: (-0.0 points, 4.0 required) >>> pts rule name description -- >>> -- 0.0 >>> URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was >>> blocked. See >>> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for >>> more information. [URIs: mus.ch] -0.0 BAYES_40 BODY: >>> Bayes spam probability is 20 to 40% [score: 0.2865] -0.0 >>> SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 >>> KAM_SHORT Use of a URL Shortener for very short URL -0.0 >>> T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE No description available. > ... > > > This is the only header in the message that looks suspicious. I > suspect the `?` characters are actually non-ascii characters in an > unencoded header and that's the problem. I think whatever is adding > this header (SpamExperts ?) is the root of the problem. If this can > be configured to not add that X-Ham-Report: header, that may solve > the issue. Ah, I see - the ? in this part: " den ? [...] Content analysis details" seems to replace a curly quote. I’ll contact the provider whether it is possible to switch off the spam detection software for our lists. > Or, you could patch > https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mailman-coders/mailman/2.1/view/head:/Mailman/Handlers/Cleanse.py#L62 > > and add > ``` > del msg['X-Ham-Report'] > ``` > to have Mailman remove it. That may help. Thank you so much Christian -- Christian Buser, Hohle Gasse 6, CH-5507 Mellingen (Switzerland) Hilfe fuer Strassenkinder in Ghana: https://www.chance-for-children.org -- Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/
[Mailman-Users] Re: illegal BOM
On 2/3/22 13:16, Christian via Mailman-Users wrote: Hello Mark Sapiro. On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 11:28:00 -0800, you wrote: Can you post the headers of the message as sent from the list? Of course. Here it is: ... X-Ham-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "crift.digimouse.eu", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see root\@localhost for details. Content preview: systemerweiterungen, benutzer, dein account, startobjekte: ist da noch was drin? Jean-Luc Aeby CH-4052 Basel > Am 03.02.2022 um 09:05 schrieb Max Röthlisberger Mus : > > Guten Morgen zusammen > > Mein MacBook Pro, OS 10.11.6 sucht zu Hause nach einem Neustart 4 - 5 > mal im Heimnetz den ? [...] Content analysis details: (-0.0 points, 4.0 required) pts rule name description -- -- 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: mus.ch] -0.0 BAYES_40 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 20 to 40% [score: 0.2865] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 KAM_SHORT Use of a URL Shortener for very short URL -0.0 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE No description available. ... This is the only header in the message that looks suspicious. I suspect the `?` characters are actually non-ascii characters in an unencoded header and that's the problem. I think whatever is adding this header (SpamExperts ?) is the root of the problem. If this can be configured to not add that X-Ham-Report: header, that may solve the issue. Or, you could patch https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mailman-coders/mailman/2.1/view/head:/Mailman/Handlers/Cleanse.py#L62 and add ``` del msg['X-Ham-Report'] ``` to have Mailman remove it. That may help. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan -- Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/
[Mailman-Users] Re: illegal BOM
Hello Mark Sapiro. On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 11:28:00 -0800, you wrote: > On 2/3/22 09:24, Christian via Mailman-Users wrote: >> Hello Carl Zwanzig. On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 17:12:37 +, you wrote: >> From tine to time I get bounce messages (for several recipients, today 4 of a total of 165) with the folloeing content: >>> >>> Are those coming from the same recipients? same hosts? (same sender?) >>> Looking for any commonality between failures. >> >> Today I saw two different mail hosts reporting this error. > > > But the question is was the poster or the poster's domain the same? Today it was 1 single message - bounced from 4 destination addresses. > Can you post the headers of the message as sent from the list? Of course. Here it is: > Return-path: > Received: from [::1] (port=42372 helo=crift.digimouse.eu) by > crift.digimouse.eu with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from > ) id 1nFYkI-0003Yb-SS for i...@jlaeby.ch; > Thu, 03 Feb 2022 11:49:41 +0200 > Received: from nx5.node01.servicehoster.ch ([194.191.24.205]:20285) > by crift.digimouse.eu with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls > TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from > ) id 1nFYjS-0003XH-W4 for listn...@mus.ch; Thu, 03 > Feb 2022 11:48:50 +0200 > Received: from web16.servicehoster.ch ([194.191.24.26]) by > node01.servicehoster.ch with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) > (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nFYij-001AvF-TE for > listn...@mus.ch; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 10:48:08 +0100 > X-SecureMailgate-Identity: supp...@jlaeby.ch;web16.servicehoster.ch > Received: from mailproxy1.servicehoster.ch > (mailproxy1.servicehoster.ch [194.191.24.249]) (Authenticated sender: > supp...@jlaeby.ch) by web16.servicehoster.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA > id E1292283C33; Thu, 3 Feb 2022 10:48:04 +0100 (CET) > X-SecureMailgate-Identity: supp...@jlaeby.ch;web16.servicehoster.ch > From: Jean-Luc Aeby > Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) > Message-Id: <49cc4583-c039-4298-aab0-486d8f38d...@jlaeby.ch> > References: <61fb806e.1000...@gmx.net> > In-Reply-To: <61fb806e.1000...@gmx.net> > To: My Listname > Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 10:47:57 +0100 > X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (19C63) > X-PPP-Message-ID: <20220203094805.1919589.44...@web16.servicehoster.ch> > X-PPP-Vhost: jlaeby.ch > X-Originating-IP: 194.191.24.26 > X-SpamExperts-Domain: web16.servicehoster.ch > X-SpamExperts-Username: 194.191.24.26 > Authentication-Results: servicehoster.ch; auth=pass > smtp.auth=194.191.24...@web16.servicehoster.ch > X-SpamExperts-Outgoing-Class: ham > X-SpamExperts-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.10) > X-Recommended-Action: accept > X-Filter-ID: > Pt3MvcO5N4iKaDQ5O6lkdGlMVN6RH8bjRMzItlySaT9GLtin6l+txdElILq/dTaMPUtbdvnXkggZ > 3YnVId/Y5jcf0yeVQAvfjHznO7+bT5zfUDJC12yq1R+0xYTXupxIc6njMu1JKD+SITWju70qDXH+ > ctc+dpw7gdML3GJ/0msh55uqY3MhMgFAHq5BxPxP12vLaykrv/CV1HIsS0W0SG32PVOyyTq65KCP > Edd+aVdouAN+Zcq4K4WoYagN8ZM67Ra46+udvgcY+rhDPo0c5ehyDmer8lEHke3c0U1vejiaLU28 > xfGxbJc3Fnwf/OFlpRmoji2HEHffcAOeAvCLnizdCoyd6Zso1A7DhSLZDZQUx7MG2wf4WvmVq0gI > vEpMsXte0CH4ExjoF85tff90A1HUoVwaoyKiseY5we892IYad3lsxkDrjYxAaP1hGz0QyGcCgytU > Mu2J9HJXA1Uo4AZeFq5fAXGcSKKeqh8qGBjw2YHxywJjv0+YZf/72FgeUHn+gnmsNLchHhymY5JU > 63hy/sIYQHSrltYx0aSLXrZBb28w2O5AZdbWNIkO3NCjZ7FYVl/BQ3QKsAVBVEjkrDhrjIHsvvRj > yQOzr25FPf/Deo2F/515C8kJ0QodJwfrmFGs5lmow6gOzU/CbOds0gEiRQv+PVjjwa+Z5RFCOMSX > MmfzoxaPyOgXrgXEjk0eWpEhCmdLpqjaP3jDB9QvXusM54wVAOlSD/zV8CCZm5fiIYr6oi6Wy76P > yMRvkvurVV8gVB0OrHv2q11HcBSY0iz3XgtqLDENrnN+u7byfLqgZZAS9m5ZAKg1qGreZOdFq+KD > +HSe3QqOtbfvew+T8Jp7R/SyQ9MaPLuQ4OIexWoNiXzTEv0SLu34PBxzuERAwdRWk4myhKHuwgYs > 2PEJ3MA/9xGgj7taJxWtHZ97uYqOu5TxNefgMpX+DiV6TZ5Nw6nIoDr0sXUZ7YZoZ/GZ+hFN0x52 > 3WxNmc+AvCalCmRJm84B1u1bEoWAFvHljuWaLNLnnkkL94kTQnbQ9bsMgGb3QSxTuhF3dtWcgZsS > 3iwqNR+YJaQAd+G4qbVmYoTDcSLZOai+Ves9Dekd80QunVT5zsfLy3aWiU9bQJYdgWKzrSl9uYny > uRAIXyrYCHbl > X-Report-Abuse-To: s...@node01.servicehoster.ch > X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 > X-Spam-Score: 0 > X-Spam-Bar: / > X-Ham-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system > "crift.digimouse.eu", has NOT identified this incoming email as > spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view > it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see > root\@localhost for details. Content preview: systemerweiterungen, > benutzer, dein account, startobjekte: ist da noch was drin? Jean-Luc > Aeby CH-4052 Basel > Am 03.02.2022 um 09:05 schrieb Max Röthlisberger > Mus : > > Guten Morgen zusammen > > Mein MacBook Pro, > OS 10.11.6 sucht zu Hause nach einem Neustart 4 - 5 > mal im Heimnetz > den ? [...] Content analysis details: (-0.0 points, 4.0 required) > pts rule name description -- > -- 0.0 > URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was > blocked. See > http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for > more information. [URIs: mus.ch] -0.0 BAYES_40 BODY: >
[Mailman-Users] Re: illegal BOM
On 2/3/22 09:24, Christian via Mailman-Users wrote: Hello Carl Zwanzig. On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 17:12:37 +, you wrote: From tine to time I get bounce messages (for several recipients, today 4 of a total of 165) with the folloeing content: Are those coming from the same recipients? same hosts? (same sender?) Looking for any commonality between failures. Today I saw two different mail hosts reporting this error. But the question is was the poster or the poster's domain the same? Can you post the headers of the message as sent from the list? -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan -- Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/
[Mailman-Users] Re: illegal BOM
Hello Carl Zwanzig. On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 17:12:37 +, you wrote: >> From tine to time I get bounce messages (for several recipients, >> today 4 of a total of 165) with the folloeing content: > > Are those coming from the same recipients? same hosts? (same sender?) > Looking for any commonality between failures. Today I saw two different mail hosts reporting this error. Thank you Christian -- Christian Buser, Hohle Gasse 6, CH-5507 Mellingen (Switzerland) Hilfe fuer Strassenkinder in Ghana: https://www.chance-for-children.org -- Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/
[Mailman-Users] Re: illegal BOM
On 2/3/2022 5:58 AM, Christian via Mailman-Users wrote: From tine to time I get bounce messages (for several recipients, today 4 of a total of 165) with the folloeing content: Are those coming from the same recipients? same hosts? (same sender?) Looking for any commonality between failures. Later, z! -- Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/
[Mailman-Users] Re: Illegal BOM?
On 9/3/21 5:51 PM, Christian Buser via Mailman-Users wrote: > Hi all > > I am using Mailman in a cPanel instalation - Mailman 2.1.33 on cPanel > 98.0.6 - and occasionally receive an error message like the one below: > > addr...@domain.ch > host mx01.servicehoster.ch [194.191.24.200] > SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data: > 550 Headers contain illegal byte order mark (BOM) > Reporting-MTA: dns; my.provider.eu > > This happened today with 5 (of about 150) subscribers on 2 receiving > servers, but only every few days - not for every message. The message > for which these complaints had been received today have a header line > "X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18G82)", but I think I have also seen others > before. > > So far I could not yet find out why these messages are refused by the > receiving server, it could be a Mailman issue or an issue of the mail > program used by the author of the message. > > Any ideas what could be done to prevent these errors? > > Thank you, > Christian Basically the mail program being used is broken and is putting an illegal character in the message. Headers are supposed to be just plain ASCII unless an extention is negotiated, but even then, there is no reason to send a BOM, as even when utf-8 is used, there is still no 'byte order' to worry about. This is definitely NOT a Mailman issue, but an MTA issue, as that is where the error is being generated. It might be possible to configure your MTA to be more forgiving, but it really looks like the sender is bad. -- Richard Damon -- Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/
