On 17-dec-03, at 1:34, Sandy Wills wrote:
I would like to propose a solution to the looming religious war:
Some people are serious about wanting to see every message that
crosses the ietf domain, and will offer violence to anyone who wants
to keep their daily dose of spam away from them.
Hi,
I wanted to know whether one can delete a control row
from hlMatrixControlTable when a control row in
al/nlMatrixTopNControlTable is pointing to the
hlMatrixControlTable control row being deleted through
the al/nlMatrixTopNControlMatrixIndex variable.
eg. A control row exists in
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:00:38AM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
I don't- IMHO it's stupid to waste the precious bits in the subject
line to say [ietf] because there is no need for such. The messages
can be filtered better using other thods as well, and humans can look
at the headers..
I
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:00:38AM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
I don't- IMHO it's stupid to waste the precious bits in the subject
line to say [ietf] because there is no need for such. The messages
can be filtered better using other thods as well, and humans can look
at the headers..
I
On Tue December 16 2003 21:45, Franck Martin wrote:
It was replied to me a lot of technical reasons on how I could
filter otherwise. But I'm a human and I like to see it is an [ietf]
mail.
I see that it is an IETF mail by seeing that it got routed into my IETF
folder. (It gets there by
I just match on either the
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
header, or the ML specific email address I've created.
I'm using Sylpheed though, it seems to be more flexible on matching header fields than
most other email clients I've used in the past.
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:13:13 -0500
Gordon Cook
On Tue December 16 2003 22:35, Sujit Menon wrote:
Subject line should have only: (IETF Mailing List)
Do you mean only as in, that should be the entire subject line, or as
in, that should be all that should be in the tag prepended to the
subject line? As a tag, it's still much longer than
Dave Aronson wrote:
Long story short, here's my proposal:
- Tag the stuff [ietf].
Modifying the Subject: line is a Bad Thing; it invalidates digital
signatures. We're never going to get widespread use of signed email as
long as we have pieces of mail infrastructure munging messages to
I find this more frustrating. I have a dynamic IP address, because fixed IP address
ADSL isn't very common here in Australia. So I use DYNDNS to map my domain MX records.
I can't get matching PTR records.
I'm assuming my mail bounced because I don't have matching PTR and MX records.
Why should
I share your frustration. Yes this is another casualty of the spam
wars. This is my isp...not me. Bankrupt in june these folk added
every ip block that they could find on every spam black hole list to
their null routing tables and in short order place in japan, nepal,
new zealand and
Mark Smith wrote:
Why should email assume fixed IP addresses for email delivery, or rather, matching PTR and MX records ?
Because spammers target home users with broadband connections, and try
to crack their systems to use them as open relays. As a result, some
ISPs have taken this step; they
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:34:35 EST, Sandy Wills [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[1] Could we come up with a 512-bit flag system[2]? Would that be
enough? I don't want dick ads, I do want breast ads, I won't read
anything from California, I really, really want stuff from Dell.
At 10:16 AM -0500 12/17/03, Gordon Cook wrote:
I share your frustration. Yes this is another casualty of the spam wars. This is
my isp...not me. Bankrupt in june these folk added every ip block that they could
find on every spam black hole list to their null routing tables and in short order
Not an option; I can't even get POP3 access to the email server
Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
Ari Ollikainen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/17/03 08:36:15
At 10:16 AM -0500 12/17/03, Gordon Cook wrote:
I share your frustration. Yes this is another casualty of the spam
wars. This is my isp...not me.
Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
At 9:55 AM -0500 12/17/03, John Stracke wrote:
Modifying the Subject: line is a Bad Thing; it invalidates digital
signatures.
Which digital signatures are you talking about? Neither S/MIME nor
OpenPGP sign the headers in messages, only the bodies.
S/MIME can sign the
would it be asking too much to add [ietf] to the subject line of each message?
yes. it's completely redundant information, and it interferes with readability,
particularly on small displays.
why don't you get a better mail reader that lets you classify mail as it arrives?
that is a much
I share your frustration. Yes this is another casualty of the spam
wars. This is my isp...not me. Bankrupt in june these folk added
every ip block that they could find on every spam black hole list to
their null routing tables and in short order place in japan, nepal,
new zealand and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...we are planning to turn on SpamAssassin on all IETF mail...
I have serious concerns about the use of spamassassin to filter IETF
mail, but it depends hugely on the details.
If the secretariat is just tagging mail, I don't have a big problem with
that.
If the
Not an option. I don't even have POP3 access to the email server.
Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/17/03 08:26:40
would it be asking too much to add [ietf] to the subject line of
each message?
yes. it's completely redundant information, and it interferes with
At 12:47 PM -0500 12/17/03, John Stracke wrote:
Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
At 9:55 AM -0500 12/17/03, John Stracke wrote:
Modifying the Subject: line is a Bad Thing; it invalidates digital
signatures.
Which digital signatures are you talking about? Neither S/MIME nor
OpenPGP sign the headers in
Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
At 12:47 PM -0500 12/17/03, John Stracke wrote:
S/MIME can sign the Subject: header (see RFC-1848, section 6.3)
RFC 1848 is for MOSS, not S/MIME or OpenPGP. MOSS had no significant
implementation.
Oh. Sorry.
--
/==\
The point of [ietf] has little to do with programatic filters and much to
do with human visual filtering. Seeing the list tag in the list of
subjects provided in the index list provided by my mail client makes
human prioritization much easier. Headers are for programs, subject
content is for
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, James M Galvin wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
At 12:47 PM -0500 12/17/03, John Stracke wrote:
Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
At 9:55 AM -0500 12/17/03, John Stracke wrote:
Modifying the Subject: line is a Bad Thing; it
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:04:21 PST, David Morris said:
The point of [ietf] has little to do with programatic filters and much to
do with human visual filtering. Seeing the list tag in the list of
subjects provided in the index list provided by my mail client makes
human prioritization much
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:47:20 PST, David Morris said:
Even so, any point of sending signed mail to a public list should be to
allow the list to process the signed mail. If signed mail ever becomes
part of the ietf list process, let the server process the signature and
mark the mail
David Morris wrote:
Even so, any point of sending signed mail to a public list should be to
allow the list to process the signed mail.
That is not the only point by a long shot. A much more important goal
would be to help the recipients trust that the message was sent by the
person it
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Mark Smith wrote:
I find this more frustrating. I have a dynamic IP address, because fixed IP address
ADSL isn't very common here in Australia. So I use DYNDNS to map my domain MX
records. I can't get matching PTR records.
I'm assuming my mail bounced because I don't
This is ridiculous. The IETF is not getting a lot of spam, so adding
SpamAssassin headers is a solution in need of a problem.
I think this kind of filtering violates the IETF charter on public
participation. SpamAssassin in particular uses many dubious and
revenge-oriented blacklists to make it
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Sandy Wills wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...this implementation is to allow the IETF community to get used
to having these headers in the messages, and allow us to make any
changes to the filtering rules.
The above seems like a thinly veiled attempt to make
i tend to agree with keith. this thread should have started life
with the subject line I can't figure out how to use filters on my
client-side or web-side email system and died right there.
(Both hotmail and yahoo can at least filter on To: or Cc:
which'll catch emails sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
At 12:47 PM -0500 12/17/03, John Stracke wrote:
Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
At 9:55 AM -0500 12/17/03, John Stracke wrote:
Modifying the Subject: line is a Bad Thing; it invalidates digital
signatures.
Which
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:14:43PM -0500, shogunx wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Mark Smith wrote:
I find this more frustrating. I have a dynamic IP address, because fixed IP
address ADSL isn't very common here in Australia. So I use DYNDNS to
I would offer that worrying about signed signatures when we don't have signed mail is
much more of a waste than 7 characters prepended to an unsigned Subject line.
-Original Message-
From: John Stracke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 9:56 AM
To: [EMAIL
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Keith Moore wrote:
Because we, people on the road, use various mail systems and even web
based mail
so do the rest of us. ever tried to read mail from a palm pilot?
those [foo] turds get *really* annoying...
Why such a war for just 6 characters, while all mailing
Because we, people on the road, use various mail systems and even web based mail, where the filters are not applied yet...
Why such a war for just 6 characters, while all mailing lists do it?
Have you been out there?
Let's give it a try and see...
Cheers
On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 04:26, Keith
Because we, people on the road, use various mail systems and even web
based mail
so do the rest of us. ever tried to read mail from a palm pilot?
those [foo] turds get *really* annoying...
Why such a war for just 6 characters, while all mailing lists do it?
because I've tried it, and found
Hmmm,
I am wondering if running this e-mail thread is adding a couple years worth of 6byte
additions to the subject.
Seems silly to me - I prefer lists to do this - makes many peoples life easier -
doesn't make anyones life harder (and frankly if 6 bytes is going to blow your
bandwidth budget
doesn't make anyones life harder
it hinders readability, esp. on small screens
it hinders sorting of mail by subject
it gets messed up with conversations involving multiple lists
it's a pain to write filters to take the stuff out...
bandwidth is not the issue.
Please consider this as someone
Tuesday 16 December 2003, Sandy Wills wrote:
Would it be possible to somehow flag messages as valid or bogus
(or maybe Holy Writ or Message from Satan), and then allow
subscribers to set their systems to automatically filter on these
labels, if they care?
Spamassassin has the
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:39:21 +1200, Franck Martin said:
Why such a war for just 6 characters, while all mailing lists do it?
If all mailing lists do it (which in itself is a dubious assertion) is sufficient
justification, why are we bothering with an IETF? Maybe we should just
disband and let
Now that the federal government has taken some steps in regulating spam,
does that mean that a technical need as the IETF would look for, isn't
needed?
Maybe the Spam should be forgot about.
Bill
Is invoking Microsoft close enough to invoking Hitler to end this
thread? (Hint: please!).
Keith is right. If you don't like the way the IETF discussion list
comes into your mailbox, start a reflector that fixes it the way you
like it. IETF+censored does more violence to its contents than we're
42 matches
Mail list logo
