Re: [Mimedefang] X-Auto-Response-Suppress header
> Exchange uses SMTP but generates a syntactically incorrect header. Similarly
> with Google's gmail (it often omits the "from" clause when required),
> Yahoo's use of an unregistered protocol ("with NNFMP"*), qmail, and of late,
> exim.
Do you also then block mail from Gmail, Yahoo, qmail and exim if their Received
lines are incorrectly formatted?
George
___
NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above
message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it.
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com
MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] X-Auto-Response-Suppress header
On Mon, 2012-05-21 at 12:22 -0700, kd6...@yahoo.com wrote: > --- On Mon, 5/21/12, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > > On Don, 2012-05-17 at 16:02 -0700, kd6...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > ... > > > Beliefs like yours are the problem. Policies like mine cause the > > > solution. > > > > Perhaps it is more annoying if you add these rules to SpamAssassin and > > score spam points for it. > > Definently not. A rejected message (returned to the sender) gets more > action (or administrative notice) than one accepted as spam therefore > unanswered. Maybe, but in commercial environments it depends if the sender needs more from the receiver (or has more force/power/) or vice versa to decide which of both opinions on the issues decide the following actions. And that can well be "turn off the blocking". Please note that I didn't mention anything on what is correct and what is wrong, good or bad or ugly, standard-compliant or not, etc. because that does not matter in any way there - it is a religious matter for these people in believing in M$FT. No, I do not like it either but the majority of people obviously have no problem with it. Yes, I reply inline and delete full-quotes (if I happen to answer them). Yes, I mark all of these "I'm, not in my office until" mails as spam (especially if I get more than one inclusive-or they go over a mailing list) because that *is* spam as in "unsolicited bulk email". Just plain rejecting mails simply kills the communication (as it kills the business relation) so that won't you get that far. Any better idea than being a PITA and flagging it as spam to get in the long run people to think about it? Bernd -- Bernd Petrovitsch Email : be...@petrovitsch.priv.at LUGA : http://www.luga.at ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] X-Auto-Response-Suppress header
kd6...@yahoo.com wrote: >When Yahoo was asked about NNFMP, its help-desk staff indicated in >2009 that any message which contains it is not real but a forgery. Although I get plenty of spam containing "with NNFMP" in a Received header, as recently as last September I saw it in a real Yahoo message from a known correspondent. :: Jeff Makey j...@sdsc.edu ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] X-Auto-Response-Suppress header
--- On Mon, 5/21/12, George Roberts wrote:
> I'm sort of sorry I started this
> whole thing, LOL. Just so I have some clarity on the issue,
> could someone please explain to me what exactly it is that
> Exchange does with Received: headers that is so bad? I
> see Received: lines from various mail systems and they all
> seem to me to be a little bit different. Also, if possible,
> please state which RFC dictates the format Exchange is
> accused of breaking.
>
> Just trying to understand what the issue is.
RFC 821 and its successors and add-ons through to 5321.
It places a multi-word phrase after "with", while "with" takes a single word
called an "atom" in the syntax. Sometimes, it also generates "id" field
parameters which contain periods when they are not bracketed with
greater-than/less-than and contain an "@" (i.e. an "addr-spec"). Basically,
they don't follow the required syntax and are therefore in error.
If exchange didn't use SMTP, there would be no problem with its "Received:"
headers since the stricter syntax of RFC 5321 wouldn't apply, and these do meet
the weak syntax of RFC 5322 (which applies to NON-SMTP messages).
When "with" is present, its parameter must be on the list of IANA registered
values. When "with SMTP" (or a variant) is present, RFC 5321 governs the
REQUIRED syntax of the "Received:" header (which includes mandatory "from" and
"by" clauses, etc., ...). "with Microsoft SMTPSVC" simply isn't valid.
Exchange uses SMTP but generates a syntactically incorrect header. Similarly
with Google's gmail (it often omits the "from" clause when required), Yahoo's
use of an unregistered protocol ("with NNFMP"*), qmail, and of late, exim.
* - When Yahoo was asked about NNFMP, its help-desk staff indicated in 2009
that any message which contains it is not real but a forgery.
___
NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above
message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it.
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com
MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] X-Auto-Response-Suppress header
I'm sort of sorry I started this whole thing, LOL. Just so I have some clarity on the issue, could someone please explain to me what exactly it is that Exchange does with Received: headers that is so bad? I see Received: lines from various mail systems and they all seem to me to be a little bit different. Also, if possible, please state which RFC dictates the format Exchange is accused of breaking. Just trying to understand what the issue is. --- Regards, George -Original Message- From: mimedefang-boun...@lists.roaringpenguin.com [mailto:mimedefang-boun...@lists.roaringpenguin.com] On Behalf Of Les Mikesell Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 5:02 PM To: mimedefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com Subject: Re: [Mimedefang] X-Auto-Response-Suppress header On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 4:47 PM, wrote: > > 2) You still haven't said why I should accept any message which violates the > standards. Malformed messages should be rejected for precisely that reason > -- ALWAYS. 1) Why do you bother with email at all if you don't care about the content? 2) The standards you mention are internet standards (even though you seem willing to violate them yourself when it suits your purposes). . Much mail actually originates in proprietary systems that do not have exact mappings to/from the internet standard requirements. If you want to communicate with people on these systems, you have to deal with whatever the gateway systems do with the messages. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] X-Auto-Response-Suppress header
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 4:47 PM, wrote: > > 2) You still haven't said why I should accept any message which violates the > standards. Malformed messages should be rejected for precisely that reason > -- ALWAYS. 1) Why do you bother with email at all if you don't care about the content? 2) The standards you mention are internet standards (even though you seem willing to violate them yourself when it suits your purposes). . Much mail actually originates in proprietary systems that do not have exact mappings to/from the internet standard requirements. If you want to communicate with people on these systems, you have to deal with whatever the gateway systems do with the messages. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] X-Auto-Response-Suppress header
On Mon, 21 May 2012 14:47:18 -0700 (PDT) kd6...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Rejecting communication with Microsoft Exchange is an interesting > > position to take and I sympathise on a philosophical level, but it's > > tilting at windmills. Completely impractical if you actually rely > > on email for business communication. > 1) Not if enough people do it. Gaining this critical mass is (IMO) impossible. > 2) You still haven't said why I should accept any message which > violates the standards. You can do whatever you want. I'm just saying it's not practical for me nor for most people. > Malformed messages should be rejected for precisely that reason -- ALWAYS. That's your position and I suppose it has a certain clarity of vision and consistency. But it's not practical for most people. Regards, David. ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] X-Auto-Response-Suppress header
--- On Mon, 5/21/12, David F. Skoll wrote: > On Mon, 21 May 2012 12:22:39 -0700 (PDT) kd6...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > Definently not. A rejected message (returned to the sender) gets > > more action (or administrative notice) than one accepted as spam > > therefore unanswered. > > Rejecting a message containing an X-Auto-Response-Suppress is not only > pointless, but it violates the RFCs, which permit any sort of X-* header. Obviously, I was not considering that case. > Rejecting communication with Microsoft Exchange is an interesting > position to take and I sympathise on a philosophical level, but it's > tilting at windmills. Completely impractical if you actually rely on > email for business communication. 1) Not if enough people do it. 2) You still haven't said why I should accept any message which violates the standards. Malformed messages should be rejected for precisely that reason -- ALWAYS. ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] X-Auto-Response-Suppress header
On Mon, 21 May 2012 12:22:39 -0700 (PDT) kd6...@yahoo.com wrote: > Definently not. A rejected message (returned to the sender) gets > more action (or administrative notice) than one accepted as spam > therefore unanswered. Rejecting a message containing an X-Auto-Response-Suppress is not only pointless, but it violates the RFCs, which permit any sort of X-* header. Rejecting communication with Microsoft Exchange is an interesting position to take and I sympathise on a philosophical level, but it's tilting at windmills. Completely impractical if you actually rely on email for business communication. Regards, David. ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] X-Auto-Response-Suppress header
--- On Mon, 5/21/12, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > On Don, 2012-05-17 at 16:02 -0700, kd6...@yahoo.com wrote: > > ... > > Beliefs like yours are the problem. Policies like mine cause the > > solution. > > Perhaps it is more annoying if you add these rules to SpamAssassin and > score spam points for it. Definently not. A rejected message (returned to the sender) gets more action (or administrative notice) than one accepted as spam therefore unanswered. ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] X-Auto-Response-Suppress header
On Don, 2012-05-17 at 16:02 -0700, kd6...@yahoo.com wrote: > --- On Thu, 5/17/12, Kris Deugau wrote: > > ...All that said Your system, your policy. > > In that case, why have standards at all if the results from > non-compliant software will be accepted anyway? Rejection of What misses here is the "be liberal what you accept, ..." sentence. But nowadays adhering to that implies lots of spam. > non-standard data (including messages) should give sufficient > motivation to fix broken software. The problem is that M$FT has to fix it and the the vast majority of users can't even belief (or do not want to think) that M$FT has bad tools/apps/ (if only that they are too lazy to get used to something else). And the pressure gets back > Beliefs like yours are the problem. Policies like mine cause the > solution. Perhaps it is more annoying if you add these rules to SpamAssassin and score spam points for it. Bernd -- Bernd Petrovitsch Email : be...@petrovitsch.priv.at LUGA : http://www.luga.at ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] X-Auto-Response-Suppress header
On Thu, 17 May 2012 16:02:18 -0700 (PDT) kd6...@yahoo.com wrote: > In that case, why have standards at all if the results from > non-compliant software will be accepted anyway? Rejection of > non-standard data (including messages) should give sufficient > motivation to fix broken software. There's exactly one thing that will motivate Microsoft to fix broken software: If they believe that not fixing it will cost more than fixing it. No other factors contribute to their consideration. Roaring Penguin is not big enough for our rejecting Exchange messages to cost Microsoft anything. We'd go out of business before Microsoft lost a penny. Regards, David. ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] X-Auto-Response-Suppress header
On May 17, 2012, at 6:02 PM, kd6...@yahoo.com wrote: > In that case, why have standards at all if the results from non-compliant > software will be accepted anyway? Rejection of non-standard data (including > messages) should give sufficient motivation to fix broken software. > Except in the case of M$FT. Back in 1995 I was working on NET 13. You'd think when the people at PARC speak other technology folks would listen. I also had folks who write the RFCs saying "but wait the RFC says... and here is why XYZ is important" but alas the boys in Redmond didn't listen or didn't care. I was running the mail switch (PMDF) and doing conversions from various native formats to SMTP and vice versa. Microsoft Exchange was so broken then. Thankfully the wayback machine can help bring back the page I wrote so long ago. http://web.archive.org/web/20050122113036/http://balius.com/pande/ I try to follow "Be conservative in what you send, liberal in what you accept" though that gets harder when one has to combat spam. Then again don't follow that advice if you're writing a packet filter. :) -Chad ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] X-Auto-Response-Suppress header
--- On Thu, 5/17/12, Kris Deugau wrote: > ...All that said Your system, your policy. In that case, why have standards at all if the results from non-compliant software will be accepted anyway? Rejection of non-standard data (including messages) should give sufficient motivation to fix broken software. Beliefs like yours are the problem. Policies like mine cause the solution. ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] X-Auto-Response-Suppress header
kd6...@yahoo.com wrote: > I take a stronger approach: Since M$ Exchange is incapable of generating > proper "Received:" headers, I reject all mail which has transited such a > system using that software. > > If one looks carefully, their chosen syntax violates even the old RFC 821/822 > standards (STD 10), let alone the 5321/5322 modern versions. If you're running anything beyond a trivial private/boutique server, this will end up causing problems for your users sooner or later. Even as the admin of many hats for a small ISP a while back (~1500 dialup users plus a handful of dedicated wireless links and ~50 hosted domains) I wouldn't have implemented a policy like that; too many customers received perfectly legitimate (if tainted-by-Exchange) mail. Or used our mail system as a smarthost. I wouldn't even do this on my *own* personal machine; all three main accounts periodically receive mail that's passed through an Exchange machine. All that said Your system, your policy. -kgd ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] X-Auto-Response-Suppress header
On Wed, 16 May 2012 15:22:59 -0700 (PDT) kd6...@yahoo.com wrote: > I take a stronger approach: Since M$ Exchange is incapable of > generating proper "Received:" headers, I reject all mail which has > transited such a system using that software. Yes, well. I can't control what SMTP server software subscribers to this list use, and it would mean the end of my business if I were to reject all mail from MS Exchange. Regards, David. ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] X-Auto-Response-Suppress header
--- On Wed, 5/16/12, George Roberts wrote:
> If one looks carefully, RFC 5321 3.7.2 states:
>
> "As another consequence of trace header fields arising
> in non-SMTP environments, receiving systems MUST NOT
> reject mail based on the format of a trace header field and
> SHOULD be extremely robust in the light of unexpected
> information or formats in those header fields."
>
> I'm not going to quote the whole RFC to you, but from what
> I've read it's pretty clear that the Received: line is for
> debugging purposes ("... the most important use of
> Received: lines is for debugging mail faults ...", Section
> 3.7.2). I'm hard-pressed to find any justification for
> blocking of mail generated or handled by Exchange. In fact,
> I think it's pretty clear the RFC states you MUST NOT block
> them.
It also states that the "Received:" header syntax is required (a MUST use) for
SMTP. The note about not rejecting is with regard to NON-SMTP transports and
does not apply to SMTP transmissions. How does one tell for message hops other
than the current one? Simple: If the received header claims "with
[[:alnum:]]*SMTP[[:alnum:]]*" (as a regex), then it was transported via SMTP
and syntax checking is not only permitted but required since malformed messages
are not acceptable under RFC 5321. If there's no "with .*SMTP.*" clause, then
the looser syntax in RFC 5322 applies -- which requires only the semicolon and
date stamp and applies to ALL messages, even those originally transported via
non-SMTP methods.
Considering that the large majority of malformed lines accompany spam, give me
a good reason why I should not assume that EVERY malformed message is spam.
What RFC 5321 section 3.7.2 is telling us is not to assume that a
SMTP-formatted "Received:" header is the only valid syntax.
Note also:
- "With" requires an IANA-registered atom element. If what follows "with" is
not on the list, the message is malformed. I do recognize the following
exceptions by regex: "(HT|NN)TPS?A?" to permit messages via webmail or Usenet
gateways. Yahoo's "NNFMP" transport is not accepted especially since Yahoo's
helpdesk in 2009 informed me that any message using that transport is a forgery
when I queried them about it. [The answer was subsequently posted to Usenet.]
- When "with *SMTP*" is present, the "from" and "by" clauses are also required.
Google's Gmail fails this part of the standard by omitting the "from" clause
(which is supposed to be followed by the HELO hostname parameter).
In enforcing this, the first thing I check is the "with" clause. If it
declares a flavor of SMTP, only then do I check for the other elements ("from",
"by", and the optional "via", "id", and "for", all which must occur in that
order). The "with" clause may be absent, in which case, I check only the
datestamp. If present, I check the list of alternative protocols and the
datestamp, but nothing else.
The authority to reject bad-datestamped "Received:" headers is in RFC 5322, not
5321.
___
NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above
message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it.
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com
MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] X-Auto-Response-Suppress header
On Oct 6, 5:23pm, George Roberts wrote:
}
} If one looks carefully, RFC 5321 3.7.2 states:
}
} "As another consequence of trace header fields arising in non-SMTP
} environments, receiving systems MUST NOT reject mail based on the
} format of a trace header field and SHOULD be extremely robust in the
} light of unexpected information or formats in those header fields."
}
} I'm not going to quote the whole RFC to you, but from what I've read
} it's pretty clear that the Received: line is for debugging purposes
} ("... the most important use of Received: lines is for debugging
} mail faults ...", Section 3.7.2). I'm hard-pressed to find any
} justification for blocking of mail generated or handled by Exchange.
} In fact, I think it's pretty clear the RFC states you MUST NOT block
} them.
No RFC can tell you what you MUST or MUST NOT block. That is a
local policy issue under the control of whatever authority is
responsible for a site. Do I think this is a silly policy that is
likely to cause major problems? Given the amount of mail that passes
through exchange servers, of course I do. But, it is his policy to
make and his right to do so.
} -Original Message-
} From: mimedefang-boun...@lists.roaringpenguin.com [mailto:mimedefang-bounce=
} s...@lists.roaringpenguin.com] On Behalf Of kd6...@yahoo.com
} Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:23 PM
} To: mimedefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com
}
} --- On Wed, 5/16/12, David F. Skoll wrote:
} > After gnashing my teeth at Microsoft because its dumb software ignores
} > Precedence: and List-*: headers and cheerfully sends out-of-office
} > replies to list owners, I discovered this:
} >
} > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee219609%28v=3Dexchg.80%29.aspx
} >
} > I've set up a MIMEDefang filter to add X-Auto-Response-Suppress: OOF
} > to all list traffic.=A0 Just passing it along as a tip to other list
} > owners.
}
} I take a stronger approach: Since M$ Exchange is incapable of generating p=
} roper "Received:" headers, I reject all mail which has transited such a sys=
} tem using that software.
}
} If one looks carefully, their chosen syntax violates even the old RFC 821/8=
} 22 standards (STD 10), let alone the 5321/5322 modern versions.
}
}-- End of excerpt from George Roberts
___
NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above
message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it.
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com
MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] X-Auto-Response-Suppress header
If one looks carefully, RFC 5321 3.7.2 states:
"As another consequence of trace header fields arising in non-SMTP
environments, receiving systems MUST NOT reject mail based on the format of a
trace header field and SHOULD be extremely robust in the light of unexpected
information or formats in those header fields."
I'm not going to quote the whole RFC to you, but from what I've read it's
pretty clear that the Received: line is for debugging purposes ("... the most
important use of Received: lines is for debugging mail faults ...", Section
3.7.2). I'm hard-pressed to find any justification for blocking of mail
generated or handled by Exchange. In fact, I think it's pretty clear the RFC
states you MUST NOT block them.
---
Regards,
George
-Original Message-
From: mimedefang-boun...@lists.roaringpenguin.com
[mailto:mimedefang-boun...@lists.roaringpenguin.com] On Behalf Of
kd6...@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:23 PM
To: mimedefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com
Subject: Re: [Mimedefang] X-Auto-Response-Suppress header
--- On Wed, 5/16/12, David F. Skoll wrote:
> After gnashing my teeth at Microsoft because its dumb software ignores
> Precedence: and List-*: headers and cheerfully sends out-of-office
> replies to list owners, I discovered this:
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee219609%28v=exchg.80%29.aspx
>
> I've set up a MIMEDefang filter to add X-Auto-Response-Suppress: OOF
> to all list traffic. Just passing it along as a tip to other list
> owners.
I take a stronger approach: Since M$ Exchange is incapable of generating
proper "Received:" headers, I reject all mail which has transited such a system
using that software.
If one looks carefully, their chosen syntax violates even the old RFC 821/822
standards (STD 10), let alone the 5321/5322 modern versions.
___
NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message,
it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it.
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang
mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
___
NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above
message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it.
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com
MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] X-Auto-Response-Suppress header
--- On Wed, 5/16/12, David F. Skoll wrote: > After gnashing my teeth at Microsoft because its dumb software ignores > Precedence: and List-*: headers and cheerfully sends out-of-office > replies to list owners, I discovered this: > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee219609%28v=exchg.80%29.aspx > > I've set up a MIMEDefang filter to add X-Auto-Response-Suppress: OOF > to all list traffic. Just passing it along as a tip to other list > owners. I take a stronger approach: Since M$ Exchange is incapable of generating proper "Received:" headers, I reject all mail which has transited such a system using that software. If one looks carefully, their chosen syntax violates even the old RFC 821/822 standards (STD 10), let alone the 5321/5322 modern versions. ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] X-Auto-Response-Suppress header
On 5/16/2012 4:02 PM, David F. Skoll wrote: Hi, all, After gnashing my teeth at Microsoft because its dumb software ignores Precedence: and List-*: headers and cheerfully sends out-of-office replies to list owners, I discovered this: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee219609%28v=exchg.80%29.aspx I've set up a MIMEDefang filter to add X-Auto-Response-Suppress: OOF to all list traffic. Just passing it along as a tip to other list owners. Regards, David. Very useful, thanks! ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
