Mailing List Archive

My autoresponder and ezmlm
Since Dan moved this list to ezmlm, evidently my autoresponder
has been responding to the list. Since the list doesn't seem to send
me my own postings anymore, I don't get to see it. A lot of you have
written to me complaining about my autoresponder, and I finally figured
out what list it is (interestingly, no one bothered to say).

I apologize for the intrusion.

The problem is that the mail headers in the new list software
don't have anything common in them to distinguish the list as a list.
My autoresponder is based on procmail, and it uses a rather
sophisticated regular expression to detect mailing lists. Part of this
regex is a search for:

^Precedence:.*(junk|bulk|list)

... which is the most specific way identify a list. It also searches
for a lot of other stuff, including "owner" which used to catch this list.

That's the value of conventions.

I have written to Dan about this, and I'm sure he'll come up with
something. In the mean time I have added:

^Mailing-List:.*ezmlm

... to my regex.

Again: Sorry it happened. It should be over.

--Bill


+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Bill Weinman <http://www.weinman.com/wew/> is the author of
The CGI Book <http://www.cgibook.com/>
Curiosity killed the cat, but at first we suspected you.
Re: My autoresponder and ezmlm [ In reply to ]
> The problem is that the mail headers in the new list software
> don't have anything common in them to distinguish the list as a list.

and in the headers of the same mail:

> Mailing-list: contact djb-qmail-help@koobera.math.uic.edu; run by ezmlm
> Delivered-to: mailing list djb-qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu

> That's the value of conventions.

And the disadvantage is that people assume conventions apply, even if someone
comes up with a different (better?) way to do it.

If you want your "convention" to become "law" put it in an RFC.

Hmm... anyone want to write an RFC for mailing lists? ;o)

>
> I have written to Dan about this, and I'm sure he'll come up with
> something. In the mean time I have added:
>
> ^Mailing-List:.*ezmlm
>
> ... to my regex.

So you've already noted that there >is< something that distiguishes the list
as a list. I fail to see the problem...

Timothy
Re: My autoresponder and ezmlm [ In reply to ]
Bill Weinman <wew@bearnet.com>:
> The problem is that the mail headers in the new list software
> don't have anything common in them to distinguish the list as a list.

I think you could use

^Return-Path: .*-wew=bearnet.com@

--
Raul
Re: My autoresponder and ezmlm [ In reply to ]
Timothy Hunt <qmail@timothy.org.uk> writes on 7 February 1997 at 11:47:30 +0000

> So you've already noted that there >is< something that distiguishes the list
> as a list. I fail to see the problem...

The "precedence" header is important for people who use uucp for mail
transport, which is still pretty common for a lot of areas. I think
this list, and ezmlm in general, should set it.
Re: My autoresponder and ezmlm [ In reply to ]
David Dyer-Bennet <ddb@gw.ddb.com> writes:
>
>The "precedence" header is important for people who use uucp for mail
>transport, which is still pretty common for a lot of areas. I think
>this list, and ezmlm in general, should set it.
>

Hmmm... Last I looked, the stock sendmail.cf files didn't invoke uux
with different uucp grades for messages with different Precedence:
headers.

It would be a fairly good idea, but I think the number of sites who
go out of their way to implement that sort of thing is rather small.

AFAIK, the only thing the Precedence: header controls is how sendmail
processes its own queue.

-Greg
--
Greg Andrews West Coast Online
Unix System Administrator 5800 Redwood Drive
gerg@wco.com Rohnert Park CA 94928
(yes, 'greg' backwards) 1-800-WCO-INTERNET
Re: My autoresponder and ezmlm [ In reply to ]
>AFAIK, the only thing the Precedence: header controls is how sendmail
>processes its own queue.

It also effects how noisy the mime-encrusted bounce messages are.
Re: My autoresponder and ezmlm [ In reply to ]
> Since Dan moved this list to ezmlm, evidently my autoresponder
>has been responding to the list.

Install qmail, subscribe to the list as username-qmail, and populate
~/.qmail-qmail appropriately. Filtering is a hack.

-Dave
Re: My autoresponder and ezmlm [ In reply to ]
John R Levine <johnl@iecc.com> writes:
>Greg Andrews <gerg@wco.com> wrote:
>>
>> AFAIK, the only thing the Precedence: header controls is how sendmail
>> processes its own queue.
>
>A lot of auto-responders, including mine, use it as a flag not to respond
>to a message send via deliberate or accidental mailing list subscription
>spoofing.
>

True. I was speaking strictly about MTAs, but I neglected to say so.

-Greg
--
Greg Andrews West Coast Online
Unix System Administrator 5800 Redwood Drive
gerg@wco.com Rohnert Park CA 94928
(yes, 'greg' backwards) 1-800-WCO-INTERNET
Re: My autoresponder and ezmlm [ In reply to ]
At 11:38 am 2/7/97 -0800, Greg Andrews spake:
>AFAIK, the only thing the Precedence: header controls is how sendmail
>processes its own queue.

It is also used to distinguish automated mail (such as lists,
daemons, and the like) by many autoresponders, including the ubiquitous
"vacation" program.

--Bill


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| http://www.bearnet.com/ || http://www.weinman.com/wew/
| Author of The CGI Book -- http://www.cgibook.com/
| Coming soon: Applied Perl -- http://www.perlbook.com/
Re: My autoresponder and ezmlm [ In reply to ]
On 8 Feb 1997, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> Date: 8 Feb 1997 16:51:27 -0000
> From: David Dyer-Bennet <ddb@gw.ddb.com>
> To: Qmail List <djb-qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu>
> Subject: Re: My autoresponder and ezmlm
>
> Greg Andrews <gerg@wco.com> writes on 7 February 1997 at 11:38:49 -0800
> > David Dyer-Bennet <ddb@gw.ddb.com> writes:
> > >
> > >The "precedence" header is important for people who use uucp for mail
> > >transport, which is still pretty common for a lot of areas. I think
> > >this list, and ezmlm in general, should set it.
> > >
> >
> > Hmmm... Last I looked, the stock sendmail.cf files didn't invoke uux
> > with different uucp grades for messages with different Precedence:
> > headers.
> >
> > It would be a fairly good idea, but I think the number of sites who
> > go out of their way to implement that sort of thing is rather small.
>
> Probably, but *to those sites* it's tremendously important. You'd want
> to look at sites using expensive uucp connects (so that they wanted to
> defer connects for some things but make them immediately for others)
> to find people using the feature.
>
> (Or does this fall under serialmail? It seems to me the grading would
> have to happen in qmail, but since I'm not currently using uucp links
> I'm not up on serialmail these days.)
>

When I used to use UUCP I always had the mail delivered at a higher
priority than the netnews. This was a very nice feature of the UUCP
system. The appropriate place to put it, IMHO, is in the interface
between the mail system and the UUCP system. For instance either SENDMAIL
or QMAIL can tell UUX to deliver it with a specific grade (priority) that
is higher than netnews so that when the call is made the mail goes first
and then the netnews and anything else.

David Wayne Summers "Linux: The choice of a GNU generation."
david@summersoft.fay.ar.us PGP Public Key available on request.
PGP Key fingerprint = C0 E0 4F 50 DD A9 B6 2B 60 A1 31 7E D2 28 6D A8
Re: My autoresponder and ezmlm [ In reply to ]
Greg Andrews <gerg@wco.com> writes on 7 February 1997 at 11:38:49 -0800
> David Dyer-Bennet <ddb@gw.ddb.com> writes:
> >
> >The "precedence" header is important for people who use uucp for mail
> >transport, which is still pretty common for a lot of areas. I think
> >this list, and ezmlm in general, should set it.
> >
>
> Hmmm... Last I looked, the stock sendmail.cf files didn't invoke uux
> with different uucp grades for messages with different Precedence:
> headers.
>
> It would be a fairly good idea, but I think the number of sites who
> go out of their way to implement that sort of thing is rather small.

Probably, but *to those sites* it's tremendously important. You'd want
to look at sites using expensive uucp connects (so that they wanted to
defer connects for some things but make them immediately for others)
to find people using the feature.

(Or does this fall under serialmail? It seems to me the grading would
have to happen in qmail, but since I'm not currently using uucp links
I'm not up on serialmail these days.)
Re: My autoresponder and ezmlm [ In reply to ]
Dave Sill <de5@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov> writes on 7 February 1997 at 21:04:35 -0000

> Install qmail, subscribe to the list as username-qmail, and populate
> ~/.qmail-qmail appropriately. Filtering is a hack.

And be sure to submit every single message and response from
username-qmail (or the appropriate unique address for that particular
list), in case the particular list allows submission by subscribers
only. I liked the username-list idea when I first heard it, but I
tried actually using it and I hated it in practice.
Re: My autoresponder and ezmlm [ In reply to ]
In <19970208165351.24019.qmail@gw.ddb.com>,
ddb@gw.ddb.com (David Dyer-Bennet) wrote:

> And be sure to submit every single message and response from
> username-qmail (or the appropriate unique address for that particular
> list), in case the particular list allows submission by subscribers
> only. I liked the username-list idea when I first heard it, but I
> tried actually using it and I hated it in practice.

This is a MUA issue, and would work beautifully if the From: address change
could be automated.

MUTT is a new UNIX-based MUA being written by Michael Elkins, who
wrote a lot of bug-fixing and performance-enhancing patches to ELM
before getting tired of the ELM developers and writing his own MUA. It
includes the concept of "folder hooks", which are sets of commands to
customize the mailer environment to behave differently in each different
mailbox (or folder, if you prefer). So, all you have to do is write a
hook in your .muttrc that sets a custom "From:" header to (for example)
handler-qmail@sub-rosa.com whenever I open the "qmail" folder in MUTT.

I haven't checked, but I suspect if you kept to a consistent naming scheme
for your mailing list mailboxes, you could write one generic folder
hook that would handle all cases. Then you don't even have to make any
modifications to your MUA setup, aside from putting "./lists/qmail"
in $HOME/.qmail-qmail.

MUTT's page is at <URL:http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~me/mutt/>.

The other alternative, of course, is to write a wrapper that lies between
your MUA and your outgoing MTA interface, and rewrites the From: header
as necessary. Not that difficult, just time consuming. A SMOP, in all
senses of the word. ;)

As an aside, MUTT is being rewritten to have a generic "mailbox" I/O
library, so you can "bolt on" code to read whatever format your mailbox
is in. People have already expressed interest in writing code
to handle TENEX mailboxes and Maildir format mailboxes. So we may
have a MUA that speaks Maildir within a couple of months.

--
Michael Handler <handler@sub-rosa.com> Washington, D.C.
Re: My autoresponder and ezmlm [ In reply to ]
>> AFAIK, the only thing the Precedence: header controls is how sendmail
>> processes its own queue.

It also changes how sendmail (and some other mailers) do bounce
processing; certainly now that I set Precedence: bulk on my mailing
lists, I get fewer "full content" bounces, more sites just bounce the
headers...
Re: My autoresponder and ezmlm [ In reply to ]
The bulk_mailer README makes the claim that some MTAs bounce messages with
a Precedence: header with a value they don't understand, and that there is
no good value to use. If true that makes adding Precedence kinda
questionable. (Don't bother quoting the standard to me saying that it
should work, we all know that there are non-compliant gateways out there.)

Dean

On 8 Feb 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:

> >> AFAIK, the only thing the Precedence: header controls is how sendmail
> >> processes its own queue.
>
> It also changes how sendmail (and some other mailers) do bounce
> processing; certainly now that I set Precedence: bulk on my mailing
> lists, I get fewer "full content" bounces, more sites just bounce the
> headers...
>
Re: My autoresponder and ezmlm [ In reply to ]
> The bulk_mailer README makes the claim that some MTAs bounce messages with
> a Precedence: header with a value they don't understand, and that there is
> no good value to use. If true that makes adding Precedence kinda
> questionable. (Don't bother quoting the standard to me saying that it
> should work, we all know that there are non-compliant gateways out there.)

No, it just makes using such MTAs questionable. An MTA that bounces
messages just because it doesn't understand a header is seriously
broken.

(The Precedence header is even not defined in RFC822, so it's an
extension-field or user-defined-field.)

olaf
Re: My autoresponder and ezmlm [ In reply to ]
> Hmmm... Last I looked, the stock sendmail.cf files didn't invoke uux
> with different uucp grades for messages with different Precedence:
> headers.
> It would be a fairly good idea, but I think the number of sites who
> go out of their way to implement that sort of thing is rather small.

All sites that run smail do implement it, as smail does mapping of
Precedence headers to UUCP grades out of the box. It also lets the
Precedence header control how bounces are processed: "bulk" doesn't
include the body in bounces and "junk" doesn't get bounced at all.

olaf
Re: My autoresponder and ezmlm [ In reply to ]
At 01:27 am 2/9/97 -0800, Dean Gaudet spake:
>The bulk_mailer README makes the claim that some MTAs bounce messages with
>a Precedence: header with a value they don't understand, and that there is
>no good value to use. If true that makes adding Precedence kinda
>questionable. (Don't bother quoting the standard to me saying that it
>should work, we all know that there are non-compliant gateways out there.)

I run a number of lists, and set all my Precedence headers to "bulk".
I've been sending out about 450,000 messages per day like this for almost
a year and I have yet to see one bounce that was reported to be for an
unrecognized "Precedence:" header. (Given the amount of lame DNS records
out there, I think this is the least of our worries.)

When you think about it, it would be pretty strange and extremely
broken behavior for an MTA to bounce a message because it didn't recognize
a non-essential header. That MTA would bounce so much mail that its
users would get very upset very quickly.

FWIW, "list" is not recognized by a lot of MTAs, but "bulk" seems to
be recognized by most. "junk" is too low for my uses, because a lot of
systems won't bounce anything with "junk" and I like to keep my lists
clean.

--Bill


+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Bill Weinman <http://www.weinman.com/wew/> is the author of
The CGI Book <http://www.cgibook.com/>
Curiosity killed the cat, but at first we suspected you.
Re: My autoresponder and ezmlm [ In reply to ]
Raul Miller writes:
> David Sill:
> > Install qmail, subscribe to the list as username-qmail, and populate
> > ~/.qmail-qmail appropriately. Filtering is a hack.
>
> Hmm... how about forwarding services (e.g. pobox.com)?

Well, pobox.com is running qmail on majordomo.pobox.com. No reason
why they couldn't run qmail on their user-forwarding machine, and
use a .qmail-default file saying "|forward username-$EXT@userhost".

--
-russ <nelson@crynwr.com> http://www.crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr Software sells network driver support | PGP ok
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | Peace, Justice, Freedom:
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | pick two (only mostly true)
Re: My autoresponder and ezmlm [ In reply to ]
David Sill:
> Install qmail, subscribe to the list as username-qmail, and populate
> ~/.qmail-qmail appropriately. Filtering is a hack.

Hmm... how about forwarding services (e.g. pobox.com)?

--
Raul