On Fri, 2001-12-07 at 03:57, Peter C. Norton wrote:
> Sure, but the beauty is that there's almost no way that a broken MTA can
> bounce in such a way as to not know where the message went.
I just *love* this boundless optimism.
Never underestimate the ability of MTA writers and postmasters (ie
"Barry A. Warsaw" wrote:
>
> > "JCL" == J C Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> JCL> Mailman is going to end up with a set of MTA-specific and
> JCL> internally configurable VERP configurations to chose from.
>
> I actually don't think that MTA-directed VERPing helps us out m
On Fri, 2001-12-07 at 11:41, Dan Mick wrote:
> Anyway, the VERP-in-the-MTA thing seems like a useful featurelet, even
> if it has limited benefit. Hopefully more MTAs will follow.
I've kicked off discussion on this on the exim lists. It would be nice
if there was some form of spec for it though
Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> It would be nice
> if there was some form of spec for it though - there appears to be one
> for a VERP extension on the courier site, but thats using a VERP keyword
> and not XVERP (presumably they are just about the same, but one you
> don't need to clear with the ES
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 06:15:21PM -0800, J C Lawrence wrote:
> > Except that, as was noted earlier, Chuq's problem *is* his wires.
> > :-)
>
> Umm, those are his wires within his network, not the wires to the
> great untapped 'network at large. Yeesh. MTAs are fundamentally
> disk IO bound. N
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 04:00:11AM -0800, Dan Mick wrote:
> A thing I hadn't thought about: if the local MTA senses that the remote
> MTA *also* supports XVERP, it doesn't have to do the expansion
> itself; it can simply send on one XVERP-ed multirecipient message,
> and let the final MTA handle t
At 23:32 06/12/2001 -0500, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
> > "RB" == Richard Barrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> RB> MM 2.1a3 admin page lets me change the host to for the list
> RB> but I cannot see any way on the list admin pages to change the
> RB> addressing scheme for the list,
Speaking of Exim.. one thing that really bothers me about Exim is the message(s) it
sends when it has to wait to deliver the message... these would be interpreted as
bounces, although they really are not. I've seen a few such messages, only to have
the message delivered normally. That would t
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 10:14:35PM -0500, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
> I actually don't think that MTA-directed VERPing helps us out much.
> Sure, it can give us an envelope sender that we can use for better
> bounce detection[*]
How robust is the bounce detection? Even with VERP and/or good MTAs,
i
"Jay R. Ashworth" wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 04:00:11AM -0800, Dan Mick wrote:
> > A thing I hadn't thought about: if the local MTA senses that the remote
> > MTA *also* supports XVERP, it doesn't have to do the expansion
> > itself; it can simply send on one XVERP-ed multirecipient mes
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 01:21:00PM -0800, Dan Mick wrote:
> > *I* think that sending a VERP template, with a spot marked for the
> > destination MTA to put the destination email address, would be the most
> > flexible approach.
>
> ? You're talking about some other ESMTP extension then?
I was n
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 01:21:00PM -0800, Dan Mick wrote:
> > > *I* think that sending a VERP template, with a spot marked for the
> > > destination MTA to put the destination email address, would be the most
> > > flexible approach.
> >
> > ? You're talking about some other ESMTP extension t
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 02:36:39PM -0500, Peter W wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 10:14:35PM -0500, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
>
> > I actually don't think that MTA-directed VERPing helps us out much.
> > Sure, it can give us an envelope sender that we can use for better
> > bounce detection[*]
>
>
At 14:18 -0500 12/7/2001, Bob Puff@NLE wrote:
>Speaking of Exim.. one thing that really bothers me about Exim is the
>message(s) it sends when it has to wait to deliver the message... these
>would be interpreted as bounces, although they really are not. I've seen
>a few such messages, only to hav
On 12/7/01 6:40 PM, "Peter C. Norton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you
> don't get the message bounced back then that email address isn't really (or
> at least always) bouncing.
Unless, of course, the postmaster implements bounces using a "not here any
more" mailbot, which will strip all of t
Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> Unless, of course, the postmaster implements bounces using a "not here any
> more" mailbot, which will strip all of the headers, not return as a bounce,
> and probably not be parsable by anything but a human, and maybe not then.
>
> This is called "being helpful", of co
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 08:01:57PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 12/7/01 6:40 PM, "Peter C. Norton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If you
> > don't get the message bounced back then that email address isn't really (or
> > at least always) bouncing.
>
> Unless, of course, the postmaster i
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 06:40:15PM -0800, Peter C. Norton wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 02:36:39PM -0500, Peter W wrote:
> > How robust is the bounce detection? Even with VERP and/or good MTAs,
> > is there enough smarts in the system to prevent a black hat from connecting
> > to the MTA on t
Peter C. Norton wrote:
> Sure it will. The message will go back to the envelope sender, which will
> be a cookied address. I guess to be sure you'd want to put the address in
> the header from, too.
How far do you take that? I have seen people put the "From:" address in their
addressbook, t
¾È³çÇϼ¼¿ä.¹Ì·¡¿¡´Â(ÁÖ) »ç¾÷ÀÚ ÀÓÀç´ö ÀÔ´Ï´Ù.ºÎ´ã¾øÀÌ Á¦Ç°ÁÖ¹®(24,000¿ø)ÇÏ½Ã°í ³×Æ®¿öÅ© ¸¶ÄÉÆÃ
»ç¾÷ÀÚ°¡ µÇ½Ê½Ã¿ä. ±×¸®°í ÁÖÀ§¿¡ ¼Ò°³ÇÏ½Ã¸é ´Ùµé °æÁ¦ÀûÀÌ¶ó µ¿ÂüÇϽʴϴÙÇöÀç ¸¹Àº ³×Æ®¿öũȸ»çµéÀÌ ³¹«ÇÏ´Â °÷¿¡¼
¾öû³ ¼Óµµ·Î ¹ßÀüÀ» ÇÏ°íÀÖ´Â "¹Ì·¡¿¡´Â(ÁÖ)"¸¦ ¼Ò°³ÇÕ´Ï´Ù.ÇöÀç ¹Ì·¡¿¡´ÂÀÌ Ãâ¹üÇ
On Fri, 07 Dec 2001 23:11:42 -0500
bob > wrote:
> Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>> Unless, of course, the postmaster implements bounces using a "not
>> here any more" mailbot, which will strip all of the headers, not
>> return as a bounce, and probably not be parsable by anything but
>> a human, and
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 11:23:02PM -0500, Peter W wrote:
> Right. That's what I'm suggesting, that maybe such a cookie plan should be
> implemented. I like my idea of the cookie being a hash of both the
> recipient address and something like a time value, so that "replay"
> attacks are less feas
They put in the header from most of the time, don't they? If so, not a
problem.
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 11:27:53PM -0500, Bob Puff@NLE wrote:
> Peter C. Norton wrote:
>
> > Sure it will. The message will go back to the envelope sender, which will
> > be a cookied address. I guess to be sure
23 matches
Mail list logo
