All messages being moderated (Re: [SLUG] inbound email checking)

[Mary Gardiner]

On Mon, Aug 04, 2008, Phil Scarratt wrote:
> Can we try changing the subject of this thread? All messages are being
> moderated.

The thread Voytek started is to do with a specific error he got sending
a mail from a particular address to a particular mail server. It doesn't
have anything to do with message moderation, or SLUG.

If you're talking about this list being moderated (and I'm guessing you
are, there's not a lot of context in your mail) then:

 1. different issue; and

 2. not sure what's up with that, maybe the moderators can fill us in?

-Mary
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] inbound email checking

[Phil Scarratt]

Peter Hardy wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 14:10 +1000, Mary Gardiner wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008, Voytek Eymont wrote:
>>> is there any req on me having an 'apache@' address if I'm sending
>>> emails as such ?
>>>
>>> (i.e., who misconfigured their server ?)
>> Sender address verification is a fairly common anti-spam technique.
>> RFC 2821 allows for mail to be rejected based on local policy, and the
>> remote end has chosen to implement a policy whereby the return address
>> must verifiably exist (in the sense of being able to receive the first
>> part of an SMTP transaction) before accepting mail. So it's not a
>> configuration that violates the protocol, that I can see.
>>
>> Whether it's a totally sensible configuration is another question: it
>> tends to interact badly if the sender address in turn greylists incoming
>> mail, for example. But it's unlikely to be accidental on their part.
> 
> I for one think it's perfectly cromulent. If the sender MX utilises
> greylisting then it'll send back a transient failure message as distinct
> from a permanent 550 failure. At that point, the receiving MX can either
> assume a transient failure means it's normally a valid address and
> accept the mail, or give back its own transient failure - an eye for an
> eye if you like.
> If that's a problem, I'm more inclined to blame it on greylisting.
> Introducing needless artificial delays strikes me as an incredibly ugly
> solution for dealing with spam. 
> 

Can we try changing the subject of this thread? All messages are being
moderated.

Fil
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] individual sender email verification on inbound

[Daniel Pittman]

"Voytek Eymont" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I have some web generated emails being sent as 'apache@' [as the
> default web user] (which perhaps I should change, but it never really
> caused problems in the past)
>
> now, an isp appears to be doing a user lookup as below and bounces
> emails, claiming my server is mis-configured:
>
> is there any req on me having an 'apache@' address if I'm sending emails
> as such ?
>
> (i.e., who misconfigured their server ?)

You did.

You are sending out email that there is absolutely *NO* way for the
intended recipient -- or their server -- to notify you about the success
or failure of delivery.

If you send out email from an email address ensure that the envelope can
receive email; either arrange for the envelope address to be something
other than "apache@" or arrange for "apache@" to forward somewhere
sensible.


Also, why are you generating outbound email that it is impossible for
the recipient to respond meaningfully to?

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] individual sender email verification on inbound

[Mary Gardiner]

On Mon, Aug 04, 2008, Peter Hardy wrote:
> I for one think it's perfectly cromulent. If the sender MX utilises
> greylisting then it'll send back a transient failure message as distinct
> from a permanent 550 failure. At that point, the receiving MX can either
> assume a transient failure means it's normally a valid address and
> accept the mail, or give back its own transient failure - an eye for an
> eye if you like.

Yeah, apparently the misbehaviour is when the verifying server receives
a 4xx due to the greylisting, and is configured to treat 4xx as a
permanent failure. THAT would count as a misconfiguration, good and
proper.

I think it all gets amazingly awful when BOTH sides are implementing
sender address verification AND greylisting. Aside from that there's the
general bothersomeness of delayed mail (especially when it gets into the
problem greylisting has with usually wanting to match the IP on
subsequent requests) but greylisting is doing the heavy delaying in both
this and its usual scenario.

-Mary
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] individual sender email verification on inbound

[Peter Hardy]

On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 14:10 +1000, Mary Gardiner wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008, Voytek Eymont wrote:
> > is there any req on me having an 'apache@' address if I'm sending
> > emails as such ?
> > 
> > (i.e., who misconfigured their server ?)
> 
> Sender address verification is a fairly common anti-spam technique.
> RFC 2821 allows for mail to be rejected based on local policy, and the
> remote end has chosen to implement a policy whereby the return address
> must verifiably exist (in the sense of being able to receive the first
> part of an SMTP transaction) before accepting mail. So it's not a
> configuration that violates the protocol, that I can see.
> 
> Whether it's a totally sensible configuration is another question: it
> tends to interact badly if the sender address in turn greylists incoming
> mail, for example. But it's unlikely to be accidental on their part.

I for one think it's perfectly cromulent. If the sender MX utilises
greylisting then it'll send back a transient failure message as distinct
from a permanent 550 failure. At that point, the receiving MX can either
assume a transient failure means it's normally a valid address and
accept the mail, or give back its own transient failure - an eye for an
eye if you like.
If that's a problem, I'm more inclined to blame it on greylisting.
Introducing needless artificial delays strikes me as an incredibly ugly
solution for dealing with spam. 

-- 
Pete

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] individual sender email verification on inbound

[Scott Ragen]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 29/07/2008 07:15:47 AM:

> I have some web generated emails being sent as 'apache@' [as the default
> web user] (which perhaps I should change, but it never really caused
> problems in the past)
> 
> now, an isp appears to be doing a user lookup as below and bounces 
emails,
> claiming my server is mis-configured:
> 
> is there any req on me having an 'apache@' address if I'm sending emails
> as such ?
> 
> (i.e., who misconfigured their server ?)
> 
One could argue that either server is incorrectly configured. I suspect 
the receiving email server is checking if the sending email is valid in an 
attempt to stop spam.
You could just alias apache@ to your (or another valid) email address, and 
that should stop the problem.

Regards,

Scott
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

[SLUG] :o)

[Lachner Lieuallen]

Hola,





   



--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Non Acceptance

[Mary Gardiner]

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008, David Liell wrote:
>Would the Mediator of this group please explain why none of my requests
>are accepted. Am I doing something wrong?

This mail came through with a bunch of others, which suggests that the
list moderators were behind on approving mail.

As for why they needed to be approved in the first place, best to
contact the list moderators directly (I am not one of them, by the way)
at [EMAIL PROTECTED] (which will get through even if you are
moderated on the main list).

-Mary
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] individual sender email verification on inbound

[Mary Gardiner]

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008, Voytek Eymont wrote:
> is there any req on me having an 'apache@' address if I'm sending
> emails as such ?
> 
> (i.e., who misconfigured their server ?)

Sender address verification is a fairly common anti-spam technique.
RFC 2821 allows for mail to be rejected based on local policy, and the
remote end has chosen to implement a policy whereby the return address
must verifiably exist (in the sense of being able to receive the first
part of an SMTP transaction) before accepting mail. So it's not a
configuration that violates the protocol, that I can see.

Whether it's a totally sensible configuration is another question: it
tends to interact badly if the sender address in turn greylists incoming
mail, for example. But it's unlikely to be accidental on their part.

In general, send those mails out with a valid envelope-from address if
you don't want them to fall foul of people's spam filters or otherwise
annoy them, if, for example, one of the addresses is invalid and you
never find out about it because you keep handing it off to a relay and
letting the relay eat the bounce messages.

-Mary
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

[SLUG] Non Acceptance

[David Liell]

Would the Mediator of this group please explain why none of my requests
are accepted. Am I doing something wrong?

David




-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

[SLUG] individual sender email verification on inbound

[Voytek Eymont]

I have some web generated emails being sent as 'apache@' [as the default
web user] (which perhaps I should change, but it never really caused
problems in the past)

now, an isp appears to be doing a user lookup as below and bounces emails,
claiming my server is mis-configured:

is there any req on me having an 'apache@' address if I'm sending emails
as such ?

(i.e., who misconfigured their server ?)


Jul 28 20:40:47 bilby postfix/smtp[7850]: D4DFEB448D6:
to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, orig_to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
relay=neptune.acenet.com.au[203.189.80.75]:25, delay=23,
delays=0.11/0.07/0.12/22,
dsn=5.0.0, status=bounced (host neptune.acenet.com.au[203.189.80.75] said:
550-Verification failed for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 550-Called:   116.197.145.51
550-Sent: RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 550-Response: 550 5.1.1
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Recipient address rejected: User unknown in virtual
mailbox
table 550-Failed sender verify, if you believe this user is not a spammer
and they
550-simply have a badly configured mailserver, contact ace to get an
exeption 550
made (in reply to RCPT TO command))



-- 
Voytek

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

[SLUG] Re: 31st July: SyPy Presentation: GAE demo with converting sql to datastore

[Dylan Jay]

Hi,

Due to limited space please RSVP either via this facebook event

or email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with your name.

On Jul 25, 12:42 pm, Dylan Jay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Python People,
>
> Next Thursday (31st July) is our monthly SyPy meetup (if we drink for
> long enough after the presentation it will be the first Thursday)
>
> There will be a presentation by Brett Morgan on "a demonstration of
> building a basic google app engine application with a discussion of
> the differences translating from sql database to appengine's
> datastore"
>
> Date & Time: 6:30PM (for a 7pm start) - 8:30PM Thursday, 31 July 2008
> Meeting Type: Presentation
> Venue: Google Australia, Level 18, Tower 1 Darling Park, 201 Sussex
> St, Sydney
> Notes: Congregate in the foyer downstairs near the security desk at or
> before 6:30 and the Google people will start taking people up in the
> elevators.
>
> After the meeting we will go to Hotel Sweeney's, 236 Clarence Street,
> Sydney, for some beer and thai food (if you are 
> hungry).http://www.whereisthepub.org/content/view/88/51/
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

[SLUG] SyPy Presentation: GAE demo with converting sql to datastore

[Dylan Jay]

Hi Python people,

Next Thursday (31st July) is our monthly SyPy meetup (if we drink for long
enough after the presentation it will be the first Thursday)

There will be a presentation by Brett Morgan on "a demonstration of building
a basic google app engine application with a discussion of the differences
translating from sql database to appengine's datastore"

Date & Time: 6:30PM (for a 7pm start) - 8:30PM Thursday, 31 July 2008
Meeting Type: Presentation 
Venue: Google Australia, Level 18, Tower 1 Darling Park, 201 Sussex St,
Sydney
Notes: Congregate in the foyer downstairs near the security desk at or
before 6:30 and the Google people will start taking people up in the
elevators.

After the meeting we will go to Hotel Sweeney's, 236 Clarence Street,
Sydney, for some beer and thai food (if you are hungry).
http://www.whereisthepub.org/content/view/88/51/



Dylan Jay
Technical Solutions Manager, Pretaweb.com
Skype:dylan_jay P:+61.2.99552830


-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

[SLUG] MythTV and Ubuntu Hardy

[David Liell]

Has anyone got this up and going yet?

David



-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

[SLUG] Re: Opinions pls on best/easiest setup Groupware suite.

[whitemice]

> In short, I guess what I'm really looking for is something to set up
> shared calendars, event/meeting invites and tasks for a single domain.

Invite processing is really a feature of the client/UI.

> So maybe, I don't really needgroupware, but simply a shared calendar
> resource (accessible over the web).
> something that's not going to be _too heavy on resources.

If you just want something pretty basic, very stable, and light I'd
strongly recommend Horde.  The UI is quite nice (especially the new
DIMP interface) and actively maintained.   It will sit nicely on just
about any backend so can just start with a MySQL or PostgreSQL
database.   I know that GroupDAV and CalDAV capabilities are at least
under development.


-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

[SLUG] Re: Safe samba configuration

[whitemice]

> [global]
> domain master = no
> local master = no
> preferred master = no
> os level = 0
> its also a good idea to set up a wins server, and send its details out
> using dhcp and set the client mode to wins only.

Setting up a WINS server is easy;  just set "wins support = yes".
That's it!  Easy.  Then tell your other devices to use the WINS
server,  this makes Windows naming much more stable.

> from man dhcp-options...

Yep.  Set -
netbios-node-type 2
netbios-name-servers 192.168.1.9
- in your DHCP configuration (assuming you have an ISC DHCP server)
and your clients will use WINS and WINS only for CIFS name-
resolution.   We have ~300 devices spread out via a WAN across 16
subnets and with WINS it all "just works".  Back when we used
broadcasting it was awful.

You can also set "dns proxy = yes" on your Samba server and if it
doesn't find a name in WINS for a search request it will look into DNS
on behalf of the client.  This allows CIFS devices to see devices that
don't support WINS.
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] The positively latest.

[Masood]

*wget -q http://wine.budgetdedicated.com/apt/387EE263.gpg -O- | sudo apt-key
add -
**sudo wget http://wine.budgetdedicated.com/apt/sources.list.d/hardy.list -O
/etc/apt/sources.list.d/winehq.list

*Then just run *sudo aptitude update* and *sudo aptitude install wine*

Masood

On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 10:58 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I'm using Hardy Heron on a laptop.
>
> apt-get install wine
>
> results in the installation of wine version 1.0
>
> I have been told that the latest version, 1.1.2, is the one to have if I
> want to use a certain application.
>
> Is there a command like
>
> apt get go-to-wine-homepage, get version 1.1.2 and install it?
>
> Any help...
>
> William Bennett.
>
>
> --
> SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
> Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
>
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

[SLUG] The positively latest.

[wbennett]

I'm using Hardy Heron on a laptop.

apt-get install wine

results in the installation of wine version 1.0

I have been told that the latest version, 1.1.2, is the one to have if I
want to use a certain application.

Is there a command like

apt get go-to-wine-homepage, get version 1.1.2 and install it?

Any help...

William Bennett.


-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html