Re: [mailop] Opentable, Legit-looking mail to the wrong address with no unsubscribe
It appears that � ngel via mailop said: >On 2023-08-24 at 14:29 -0400, postfix--- via mailop wrote: >> (...) >> Needless to say: I will avoid restaurants using OpenTable, whether >> while visiting destinations or at home. If they cannot choose a >> service provider that is respectful of my choices, they do not >> deserve my business. > >Great opportunity lost here to add a tip in the bill, then subtracting >in an itemized way a fee for the text message on roaming, for every >reminder email and for suggesting you're so dumb to need an email >telling you you're seated at the restaurant (maybe that reflects the >average IQ of their patrons?) It is really poor form to penalize the waiters who depend on tips for the perceived sins of the restauarant's owner. If you dislike their spam, tell the manager why you won't be back, don't pick on the waiter. I've used Opentable a lot, they have a unique address so I know when the mail is from them, and I don't recall having much trouble getting overenthusiastic restaurants to shut up. R's, John ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Any old-school sendmail types here good with the m4?
On 8/30/23 2:06 AM, Dan Mahoney (Gushi) via mailop wrote: Grant, I appreciate the time it must have taken you to write this long callout about how I surely must be "doing it wrong". :-) I've been running mail for 20 years now. *nod* I think I've been running Sendmail roughly the same amount of time. '00 plus or minus depending on how you count things. This is the first occurence of this problem I don't think that "1st time in 20 years" is as appropriate as you might want it to be, seeing as how we're talking about a behavior that I understand SpamHaus to have changed in the last 18 months or so. (and again, only because the local caching resolver that my new host configured...was not recursive). That ... seems problematic. The mix of solutions I've had in play has served me reasonably well. My SA config checks many RBLs. But the volume and load of mails I scan with SA would be easily tenfold if not for SH. To each their own. I still stand by not rejecting out of hand /just/ /because/ an IP is listed in an RBL. I've also discovered (over on comp.mail.sendmail) that SpamHaus's recommended, documented use of the enhdnsbl feature DOES NOT WORK, which I suspect is a bug in how the rules are transformed from .mc syntax to .cf syntax. I can't prove or disprove that. But it sounds like something else is wrong. M4 has been converting macro config (.mc) syntax rules to config file (.cf) syntax rules for more than two decades. There is entirely a possibility that something has happened that has caused the .mc to not behave as desired. I'm thinking something like smart quotes, or CR/LF issues, or similarly almost certainly wouldn't happen if lines were re-typed by hand. (Assuming no typos.) In order to debug the m4 not doing the right things, I need to understand the raw .cf, which brings me back to my original tongue-in-cheek suggestion of greater enlightenment. I interpret that a little bit differently. It sounds to me like you are saying that the underlying .cf syntax -- generated from the .mc syntax -- is broken. Once you have the fully functional .cf syntax, you can then tackle why the .mc syntax isn't generating the desired .cf syntax. If you have valid .cf syntax and .mc syntax that isn't quite generating said .cf syntax, please share it and I'll take a look. A lot of M4 work can be "how can I generate this result" and working backwards to "this will generate that". -- Grant. . . . unix || die ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] OT: OpenTable
On Wed, 30 Aug 2023, Ángel via mailop wrote: On 2023-08-24 at 14:29 -0400, postfix--- via mailop wrote: (...) Needless to say: I will avoid restaurants using OpenTable, whether while visiting destinations or at home. If they cannot choose a service provider that is respectful of my choices, they do not deserve my business. Great opportunity lost here to add a tip in the bill, then subtracting in an itemized way a fee for the text message on roaming, for every reminder email and for suggesting you're so dumb to need an email telling you you're seated at the restaurant (maybe that reflects the average IQ of their patrons?) Not sure they would take action on clearly viewing the monetary results of their "awesome system", but it would certainly be a bill that would do rounds on the internet for years. I haven't experienced OpenTable but if it allows that sort of response when tipping, then I am impressed. -- Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK and...@aitchison.me.uk___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Any old-school sendmail types here good with the m4?
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, Dan Mahoney (Gushi) via mailop wrote: > I've also discovered (over on comp.mail.sendmail) that SpamHaus's > recommended, documented use of the enhdnsbl feature DOES NOT WORK, which I You should have read the fine (sendmail) documentation instead: FEATURE(`enhdnsbl', `dnsbl.example.com', `', `t', `127.0.0.2.') the trailing dot is important (check the -a option of the map). Also shown in one of the replies you got here. -- Please don't Cc: me, use only the list for replies, even if the mailing list software screws up the Reply-To header. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Any old-school sendmail types here good with the m4?
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote: On 8/23/23 4:29 AM, Dan Mahoney (Gushi) via mailop wrote: I just posted this over on comp.mail.sendmail, but the gist of it is: Sometimes spamhaus hands off a query to their dnsbls of 127.255.255.255 or 127.255.255.254, indicating that you're being rate limited. With all due respect, this seems to be more of a /configuration/ (of Sendmail) problem than it is a Sendmail or M4 problem. Grant, I appreciate the time it must have taken you to write this long callout about how I surely must be "doing it wrong". I've been running mail for 20 years now. This is the first occurence of this problem (and again, only because the local caching resolver that my new host configured...was not recursive). The mix of solutions I've had in play has served me reasonably well. My SA config checks many RBLs. But the volume and load of mails I scan with SA would be easily tenfold if not for SH. I've also discovered (over on comp.mail.sendmail) that SpamHaus's recommended, documented use of the enhdnsbl feature DOES NOT WORK, which I suspect is a bug in how the rules are transformed from .mc syntax to .cf syntax. In order to debug the m4 not doing the right things, I need to understand the raw .cf, which brings me back to my original tongue-in-cheek suggestion of greater enlightenment. -Dan -- Dan Mahoney Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC FB: fb.com/DanielMahoneyIV LI: linkedin.com/in/gushi Site: http://www.gushi.org --- ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
