From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/46080 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Matt Armstrong Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: TMDA (was: new spam functionality added) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 13:32:52 -0600 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: <87bs8bygij.fsf@naz.lickey.com> References: <87y9brejam.fsf@mail.paradoxical.net> <873ctztyth.fsf@mail.paradoxical.net> <20020801222925.A10502@mastaler.com> <02Aug5.143835edt.119445@gateway.intersystems.com> <02Aug5.174118edt.119294@gateway.intersystems.com> <874re5wvrc.fsf@home.lan> <877kj11ctx.fsf@naz.lickey.com> <87u1m5w14y.fsf@doohan.bang.priv.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1028921588 2670 127.0.0.1 (9 Aug 2002 19:33:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 19:33:08 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17dFVS-0000gx-00 for ; Fri, 09 Aug 2002 21:33:06 +0200 Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu ([129.7.128.10] ident=lists) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 17dFVm-00075r-00; Fri, 09 Aug 2002 14:33:26 -0500 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Fri, 09 Aug 2002 14:33:54 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (qmailr@sclp3.sclp.com [209.196.61.66]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA00127 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 14:33:31 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: (qmail 27308 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2002 19:32:58 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 27303 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2002 19:32:58 -0000 Original-Received: from hank.lickey.com (ident-is-dumb@64.81.100.235) by gnus.org with SMTP; 9 Aug 2002 19:32:58 -0000 Original-Received: from squeaker.lickey.com (squeaker.lickey.com [192.168.100.10]) by hank.lickey.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87503EE41 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 13:32:56 -0600 (MDT) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by squeaker.lickey.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 573E3C1B4 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 13:32:56 -0600 (MDT) Original-Received: from naz.lickey.com (naz.lickey.com [192.168.100.246]) by squeaker.lickey.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4BAFC1B3 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 13:32:55 -0600 (MDT) Original-Received: by naz.lickey.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 62EB028023; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 13:32:52 -0600 (MDT) Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: <87u1m5w14y.fsf@doohan.bang.priv.no> (Steinar Bang's message of "Thu, 08 Aug 2002 22:23:25 +0200") Original-Lines: 58 User-Agent: Gnus/5.090007 (Oort Gnus v0.07) Emacs/21.2 (i386-debian-linux-gnu) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS snapshot-20020300 Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:46080 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:46080 Steinar Bang writes: >>>>>> Matt Armstrong : > >> Steinar Bang writes: > >> All types of automatic replies should go to the envelope sender. > > Not _all_ types of automatic replies. > > Bounces should go to the envelope sender, but I can't offhand think > of any others that should. This isn't an authoritative reference, but this draft gives (I think) good arguments to the contrary: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-moore-auto-email-response-00.txt >> Failure to do that is how you end up with auto-replies getting sent >> to mailing lists, etc. > > A proper auto-replier (I'm guessing you mean a vacation-like program > here?) shouldn't be sending a notification in the first place, if > the incoming message isn't addressed to the recipient. Agreed -- this is suggested in the above mentioned draft too. > If an auto-replier in its infinite wisdom decides to send a > notification anyway, it shouldn't send it to the envelope address, > which in this case is the list manager. It should send it to the > address in the From: field, which is supposed to be the address of > the person that sent the message to the list. I disagree with you here. The list admin is in a better position to kick the offending user off the list or otherwise fix the problem. The current debian 'vacation' program replies to the envelope sender, and I assume it has been that way for a long time. So there is some historical precedent as well. >> Probably best to fix your envelope sender. > > The envelope sender in question, was the default envelope > configuraton for exim in debian woody. AFAIR it was the same as the > default envelope in SuSE 6.2, ie. username@FQDN. > > Some people would debate that this is the correct value for the > envelope sender. I assumed the envelope sender you were using wasn't actually reaching you. If so, I'd call that a configuration error. I think it is reasonable to expect the envelope sender to be valid -- the SMTP bounce and delivery status mechanisms depend on it.