Am Dienstag, den 16.02.2010, 07:00 -0500 schrieb David F. Skoll:
Marcus wrote:
I'd like to disable spamassassin checks for all emails sent from the
host mimedefang is running on (= localhost). But how can I distinguish
between an email sent by localhost and an email which is resubmitted
D. Stussy wrote:
The superuser (unix) or administrator (windows) should NEVER be
permitted login access via SSH.
Well. That's a blanket statement; there are certainly some cases that
justify root login via SSH. For example, our nightly backup uses an
SSH key pair with a forced command (and
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 11:00:17PM +, Tom H wrote:
I left the read_commands_file() in filter_sender, and tried again with
the same code in filter end, but I get a Milter delete (noop): header:
Received message in the logs, and the Received header remains.
Is it possible to remove
Tom H t...@limepepper.co.uk wrote:
Hi All,
I've heard some suggestions not to do this, but I plan along with gmail
and some others to do it anyway... ;-)
I would like to strip off any headers for my connection to my own smtp
server, which are authenticated.
RFC 2821
4.4 Trace
David F. Skoll d...@roaringpenguin.com wrote:
Joseph Brennan wrote:
Gmail inserts Received headers according to standard.
I beg to differ!
http://www.roaringpenguin.com/whynogmail
I was baiting you :-) The HTTP hop from end user to Gmail's webmail
server is not SMTP, so it's not
Joseph Brennan wrote:
I was baiting you :-) The HTTP hop from end user to Gmail's webmail
server is not SMTP, so it's not covered by RFC 2821.
Well, RFC 5321 says:
When forwarding a message into or out of the Internet environment, a
gateway MUST prepend a Received: line, but it MUST
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:47:54 -0500
David F. Skoll d...@roaringpenguin.com wrote:
Joseph Brennan wrote:
I was baiting you :-)
it should work :D)
The HTTP hop from end user to Gmail's webmail
server is not SMTP, so it's not covered by RFC 2821.
Well, RFC 5321 says:
When
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010, Reg Tepmongkol wrote:
I don't see a duplicate function or action, what i see is
resend_message(@recips). Can you elaborate on the duplicate function?
Or maybe i can change the recips address to junkmail, sent it, then
remove
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 14:19, Joseph Brennan bren...@columbia.edu wrote:
I agree that it is extremely desirable to have the originating IP
and like you I wish Gmail would provide it. I just don't think
it's a standards violation.
And if you submit email by SMTP they do provide it (in my
On 2/17/2010 8:47 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
So... I would say that gmail.com is violating a MUST requirement of
RFC 5321.
Here's something similar. When I log into a timeshare and send mail
with Pine, you don't get to see the ssh hop from my Mac either.
There's no email gatewaying going on
Les Mikesell wrote:
How is running pine on a remote machine any different than running a web
interface to mail, perhaps on that same remote machine?
Because running pine over SSH is not a gateway as defined in RFC
5321, whereas running a Webmail server that accepts email using some
kind of
On 2/17/2010 10:07 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
How is running pine on a remote machine any different than running a web
interface to mail, perhaps on that same remote machine?
Because running pine over SSH is not a gateway as defined in RFC
5321, whereas running a Webmail
Les Mikesell wrote:
Because running pine over SSH is not a gateway as defined in RFC
5321, whereas running a Webmail server that accepts email using some
kind of transport (HTTP or HTTPS) and then delivers it using SMTP *is*
a gateway as defined in RFC 5321.
Sorry, but a web interface isn't
On 2/17/2010 12:05 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
Because running pine over SSH is not a gateway as defined in RFC
5321, whereas running a Webmail server that accepts email using some
kind of transport (HTTP or HTTPS) and then delivers it using SMTP *is*
a gateway as defined in RFC 5321.
Sorry,
Les Mikesell wrote:
Transmitting an email via HTTP from a client computer qualifies
as gatewaying by my reading of the RFC.
That means you have to think my web browser is also an email gateway.
No. You misunderstand. The web *server* is the email gateway. It
gateways mail *from* the
On 2/17/2010 12:56 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
Transmitting an email via HTTP from a client computer qualifies
as gatewaying by my reading of the RFC.
That means you have to think my web browser is also an email gateway.
No. You misunderstand. The web *server* is the email gateway. It
(Why do I get sucked in? :))
No. You misunderstand. The web *server* is the email gateway. It
gateways mail *from* the browser (using HTTP) *to* the Internet (using
SMTP).
Gateways need something on both sides to participate.
Yep. On one side: The Web browser. On the other side: The
On 2/17/2010 1:47 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
(Why do I get sucked in? :))
Because you would be equally pedantic if you thought someone else was
misinterpreting and abusing an RFC...
No. You misunderstand. The web *server* is the email gateway. It
gateways mail *from* the browser (using
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 02:47:53PM -0500, David F. Skoll wrote:
You and Gmail are the only ones with this interpretation. Other
Webmail providers (Yahoo, Hotmail) and Webmail software (Squirrelmail;
Horde) use my interpretation. So I submit that you are the one
interpreting the RFC oddly.
Les Mikesell wrote:
It is not a non-internet mail system running inside my browser - which
is what the RFC covers.
The RFC defines a gateway as this:
A gateway SMTP system (usually referred to just as a gateway)
receives mail from a client system in one transport environment and
On Jul 10, 9:23am, David F. Skoll wrote:
}
} No. You misunderstand. The web *server* is the email gateway. It
} gateways mail *from* the browser (using HTTP) *to* the Internet (using
} SMTP).
}
} Gateways need something on both sides to participate.
}
} Yep. On one side: The Web
On 2/17/2010 3:59 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
The RFC defines a gateway as this:
A gateway SMTP system (usually referred to just as a gateway)
receives mail from a client system in one transport environment and
transmits it to a server system in another transport environment.
Op 17 feb 2010, om 20:47 heeft David F. Skoll het volgende geschreven:
You and Gmail are the only ones with this interpretation.
And me too.
What I find lacking in this discussion is the reason why google would
do this. And I think I know why, because I'm tempted to do the same,
at least
Jan-Pieter Cornet wrote:
[...]
I'm sure the information on the submitting IP isn't lost (hah, google
and deleting data??!), it's just not publicly available. Google will
surely dish up the info if they get abuse complaints. (... or a visit
from the feds. Or a request from a big law firm. Or
John Nemeth wrote:
} Yep. On one side: The Web browser. On the other side: The rest of
} the Internet. Why is that so hard to understand?
Yes, a web browser, not an MUA of any sort!
Really? Why isn't it an MUA? What part of the definition of an MUA
does composing mail in a Web
25 matches
Mail list logo
