This one time, at band camp, Florian Weimer said:
> > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:45:58PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> So the best idea is indeed for
> >> downstream systems to have policies which are no more strict than
> >> upstream systems.
> >
> > Would it be possible for master to make call-o
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:45:58PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> So the best idea is indeed for
>> downstream systems to have policies which are no more strict than
>> upstream systems.
>
> Would it be possible for master to make call-outs to chiark ?
> would that solve the problem ?
I don't thin
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:45:58PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> So the best idea is indeed for
> downstream systems to have policies which are no more strict than
> upstream systems.
Would it be possible for master to make call-outs to chiark ?
would that solve the problem ?
Regards,
Paddy
--
Per
Stephen Frost writes ("Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> *I* don't bounce much of anything. Talk to Ian about wanting to
> generate bounces, it wasn't my idea. What I want is for him to bounce
> it himself if he feels it needs to be bounced, not
* Brian May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Are you saying you should bounce SPAM mail???
*I* don't bounce much of anything. Talk to Ian about wanting to
generate bounces, it wasn't my idea. What I want is for him to bounce
it himself if he feels it needs to be bounced, not make master do it.
No, I
> "Stephen" == Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> So if I have my system say `250' to a piece of mail, I'm guaranteeing
>> that either I'll bounce it (and get a `250' on the bounce), or that
>> some human (me or someone else I know) will read it.
Stephen> Sure, so sa
Hi,
Darren Salt wrote:
There is a database where ISPs can register the ranges they assign for
dialup users.
Isn't that for dynamic-IP dial-up only?
AFAIK there are two lists, however only few static dialup IPs are
registered -- after all, the interesting attribute is whether the
addresse
I demand that Simon Richter may or may not have written...
> Rolf Kutz wrote:
>>> emails because of obviously nonexistent envelope addresses, that doesn't
>>> count those systems where we don't accept mail from *at all* because they
>>> are dialup systems. This, however, is a small system with 10
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:57:27AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > I don't want to accept any random crap that a forwarding host might send
> > me just because I asked it to forward mail for me; my resources (in the
> > form of bandwidth, processing ti
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I don't want to accept any random crap that a forwarding host might send
> me just because I asked it to forward mail for me; my resources (in the
> form of bandwidth, processing time, and disk space) are limited, and if
Then don't run a mail server.
James Troup writes ("Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> The change was made roughly less than 24 hours before your first post
> to debian-devel. There wasn't actually all that much time to contact
> you in.
You (plural) could have _just_ contacted me an
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 01:56:25PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > So if I have my system say `250' to a piece of mail, I'm guaranteeing
> > that either I'll bounce it (and get a `250' on the bounce), or that
> > some human (me or someone else I know) will
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Six days ago I discovered that one of the Debian system
> administrators had made a deliberate and highly unusual
> configuration change which predictably broke mail from or via master
> to:
Err, no. Mail was _already_ bouncing, but after reaching the re
Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> The real problem with these bounces is not that they fill up the
>> forwarding host's queue but that they are usually unwanted. Think Joe
>> Job.
> This thread is about email that is obviously not legitimate just looking
> at t
Six days ago I discovered that one of the Debian system administrators
had made a deliberate and highly unusual configuration change which
predictably broke mail from or via master to:
* me personally
* some of the >=8 other Debian developers who have accounts on chiark
* the Technical Committee
Hello,
Rolf Kutz wrote:
emails because of obviously nonexistent envelope addresses, that doesn't
count those systems where we don't accept mail from *at all* because
they are dialup systems. This, however, is a small system with 10 email
How do you define dialup systems and tell dialup
sys
* Quoting Simon Richter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> emails because of obviously nonexistent envelope addresses, that doesn't
> count those systems where we don't accept mail from *at all* because
> they are dialup systems. This, however, is a small system with 10 email
How do you define dialup syst
Hi,
Andreas Metzler wrote:
The real problem with these bounces is not that they fill up the
forwarding host's queue but that they are usually unwanted. Think Joe
Job.
This thread is about email that is obviously not legitimate just looking
at the envelope.
In this day and age, everyone doe
* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes ("Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> > * Andy Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > a) inflict bounce spam scatter on the forged from addresses in the
> > >malware and spam
* Steinar H. Gunderson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 02:11:43PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I expect you could do it though I havn't tried myself because I'm not a
> > big fan of smtp-level rejects exactly for these reasons. I just accept
> > and then discard (at least f
Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2005/11/19, Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> FWIW he currently does a. Rejecting at SMTP time causes backscatter on
>> forwarded mail, as the forwarding host cannot reject because it
>> already has accepted the mail.
> And usual way to dea
Stephen Frost writes ("Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> * Andy Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > a) inflict bounce spam scatter on the forged from addresses in the
> >malware and spam he doesn't want to accept delivery for; or
...
> It&#
Andy Smith writes ("Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> Instead of either side in this debate saying "Not my problem, you
> should do this..." how about reaching some compromise? It sounds
> like in the short term, Ian needs to discard some mail inste
2005/11/19, Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> FWIW he currently does a. Rejecting at SMTP time causes backscatter on
> forwarded mail, as the forwarding host cannot reject because it
> already has accepted the mail.
And usual way to deal with this is to set:
ignore_errmsg_errors_after = 7d
I
Andy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 12:48:30PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> * Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>> Stephen Frost writes ("Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
>>>> Then bounce it loc
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 02:11:43PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I expect you could do it though I havn't tried myself because I'm not a
> big fan of smtp-level rejects exactly for these reasons. I just accept
> and then discard (at least for known userids, but I don't expect many
> people to be s
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Since we are talking about it, it is not always trivial to special-case an
> incoming connection for a local bounce instead of a SMTP-level bounce,
> though. At least not with all MTAs.
Using an MTA with the capabilities you need should b
* Andy Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> You would prefer that Ian:
>
> a) inflict bounce spam scatter on the forged from addresses in the
>malware and spam he doesn't want to accept delivery for; or
That is what he's said he wants to do. What I want him to do is have
*his* servers do it, n
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Stephen Frost writes ("Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> > > Then bounce it locally. Duh. No reason to force master to deal with
> > > the bo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 12:48:30PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Stephen Frost writes ("Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> > > Then bounce it locally. Duh. No reason to force master to deal with
>
Stephen Frost writes ("Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> Then bounce it locally. Duh. No reason to force master to deal with
> the bounce messages you feel are 'right' to send.
I don't bounce it. I reject it at SMTP time with a 4xx or 5xx code
* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes ("Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> > Then bounce it locally. Duh. No reason to force master to deal with
> > the bounce messages you feel are 'right' to send.
>
> I don
* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes ("Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> > So accept it and auto-discard it instead, if you prefer; but don't throw it
> > back at master after telling master to send it to you.
>
>
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> Anyway, the line in question is still in master's exim4 config; you may want
> to try sending a mail to debian-admin, let them know what you've done on
> your end, and ask if there'
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 04:01:10PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > But, there is another important point: I don't really want a
> > debian.org address. It's technically necessary for m
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 01:41:31PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > No: there is nothing "proper" about rejecting mail from a host that you
> >> > have
> >> > configured to forward mail for you.
> >> Nearly all of this mail flow is invalid in one way
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > No: there is nothing "proper" about rejecting mail from a host that you
>> > have
>> > configured to forward mail for you.
>
>> Nearly all of this mail flow is invalid in one way or another.
>
> Of course it is. That doesn't make it "proper" to reje
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 04:01:10PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> If a domain was set up to be treated this way for an unrelated reasons
> without an announcement anywhere, surely that is even worse !
Well, it's no longer "DSA is making misleading statements about the nature
of the problem"; the fact
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:51:10PM +, Tim Cutts wrote:
> On 15 Nov 2005, at 2:34 pm, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > No: there is nothing "proper" about rejecting mail from a host
> > that you have configured to forward mail for you.
>
> I can see where you're coming from, but it's unavoidable, isn'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15 Nov 2005, at 2:34 pm, Steve Langasek wrote:
* The mail backlog that `will never be able to be delivered' was
(as far as I can tell) all spam that chiark has been properly
rejecting.
No: there is nothing "proper" about rejecting mail
On Nov 15, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [I don't want a debian.org address either]. In the past the
> > debian-admins suggested that they would consider allowing to disable
> > them if somebody else implemented everything needed to do it.
> Do we know what would be needed ?
An updat
Marco d'Itri writes ("Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> [I don't want a debian.org address either]. In the past the
> debian-admins suggested that they would consider allowing to disable
> them if somebody else implemented everything needed to do it
On Nov 15, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But, there is another important point: I don't really want a
> debian.org address.
Me neither. In the past the debian-admins suggested that they would
consider allowing to disable them if somebody else implemented
everything needed to do it.
--
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:18:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > * It is unfortunate that (a) master has such a lax spam policy and
> >that (b) Debian developers cannot choose to make th
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> Based on specifics (well... more-specific vaguenesses) mentioned by Ryan
> elsewhere, I don't believe this is the case. Chiark appears to be on the
> wrong continent to be attached to the user in
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:18:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ryan Murray writes ("master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> > Also, I've investigated the mail backlog on master and found the main
> > problem. The mail queue is currently full of emai
Ryan Murray writes ("master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> Also, I've investigated the mail backlog on master and found the main
> problem. The mail queue is currently full of email that will never be
> able to be delivered, all for one particular user. This
Hi Ryan,
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:38:43PM -0800, Ryan Murray wrote:
> Also, I've investigated the mail backlog on master and found the main
> problem. The mail queue is currently full of email that will never be
> able to be delivered, all for one particular user.
Why would that be?
Could y
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:38 -0800, Ryan Murray wrote:
> Also, I've investigated the mail backlog on master and found the main
> problem. The mail queue is currently full of email that will never be
> able to be delivered, all for one particular user. This mail is being
> removed from the queue,
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Ryan Murray wrote:
> Also, I've investigated the mail backlog on master and found the main
> problem. The mail queue is currently full of email that will never be
> able to be delivered, all for one particular user. This mail is being
Can you give us more data on this?
--
50 matches
Mail list logo
