On May 24, 2011, at 11:29 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>Barry Warsaw writes:
>
> > What's the legitimate use case for multiple From headers?
>
>Technically, there is none. RFC 5322 requires exactly one From field,
>and that's that. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5322.txt, table in
>section 3.6. (
Barry Warsaw writes:
> What's the legitimate use case for multiple From headers?
Technically, there is none. RFC 5322 requires exactly one From field,
and that's that. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5322.txt, table in
section 3.6. (Resent-From, of course, is a different kettle of fish.)
However,
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 18:01 +0200, Lucio Chiappetti wrote:
> > Mail sent on behalf of a group, such as mail from a committee or from
> > the multiple authors of a paper, where you want people's individual
> > addresses and names exposed
>
> But surely that does not require multiple From lines, l
On Mon, 23 May 2011, Jay A. Sekora wrote:
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 11:06 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
What's the legitimate use case for multiple From headers?
Mail sent on behalf of a group, such as mail from a committee or from
the multiple authors of a paper, where you want people's individual
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 11:06 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> What's the legitimate use case for multiple From headers?
Mail sent on behalf of a group, such as mail from a committee or from
the multiple authors of a paper, where you want people's individual
addresses and names exposed (or you can't cre
On May 23, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Jay A. Sekora wrote:
>However, that means that as more spammers use this technique, either
>sites are going to have to start blocking mail with multiple From:
>addresses at SMTP time -- and I discovered to my surprise that we *do*
>have legitimate senders using that f
Thanks very much, Mark; this is exactly what I needed to know!
> To answer your question, put a regexp like
>
> (?s)\nFrom:.*\nFrom:
>
> in Privacy options... -> Spam filters -> header_filter_rules. These
> regexps are searched in IGNORECASE and MULTILINE mode. The (?s) will
> set DOTALL (dot ma
On Sun, 2011-05-22 at 23:44 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Do you mean to say that the people at CSAIL ought to switch to using
> SpamAssasin instead of filtering in Mailman?
We *are* using SpamAssassin *as well as* filtering in Mailman.
> Jay, do you see a reason not to do it that way?
There
Richard Stallman writes:
> Do you mean to say that the people at CSAIL ought to switch to using
> SpamAssasin instead of filtering in Mailman?
I don't know anything about CSAIL, so I can't say for that particular
case. But I've yet to see a *good* reason for doing generic filtering
at the Mail
On 5/22/2011 8:44 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
Do you mean to say that the people at CSAIL ought to switch to using
SpamAssasin instead of filtering in Mailman?
Use the best tool for each job, and know that the Swiss Army knife approach
is usually not the best at anything. (Or, why filter out
Do you mean to say that the people at CSAIL ought to switch to using
SpamAssasin instead of filtering in Mailman?
Jay, do you see a reason not to do it that way?
--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org, www.gnu.org
Skype: No way!
Richard Stallman writes:
> It sounds like this new spam technique is becoming xommon.
> Would it make sense for Mailman's defaults to DTRT for it,
> or reduce the amount of customization users need to do?
No. Mailman really shouldn't be doing any spam filtering at all. It
needs filtering, ye
It sounds like this new spam technique is becoming xommon.
Would it make sense for Mailman's defaults to DTRT for it,
or reduce the amount of customization users need to do?
--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org, www.gnu.org
Skyp
Jay A. Sekora wrote:
>Hi. I had been noting with trepidation the recent rise in spam mail
>with multiple spoofed From: lines, e.g.,
>
>From: m...@example.net
>From: y...@example.net
>From: l...@example.net
>To: l...@example.net
>
>since that drastically increases the chances of any given spam mes
Hi. I had been noting with trepidation the recent rise in spam mail
with multiple spoofed From: lines, e.g.,
From: m...@example.net
From: y...@example.net
From: l...@example.net
To: l...@example.net
since that drastically increases the chances of any given spam message
having a spoofed From: lin
15 matches
Mail list logo
