On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 01:30:30PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> The correct solution here is that the MTA that supports 8BITMIME
> itself and wants to send an 8-bit message to another MTA that
> doesn’t offer it in the EHLO dialogue (or doesn’t support EHLO)
> *must* convert the message to QP an
Philipp Kern dixit:
>I also assume that Exim does send 8bit mails to non-8bit compliant MTAs (i.e.
>not advertising 8BITMIME). I don't know if that's some sort of violation.
It does, and it’s a violation, yes. I’ve cursed often enough
about that (deliberately running an MTA stripping bit7, for
s
On Thu, 17 May 2012, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 05/03/2012 07:23 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Well, FWIW postfix allows you to override all MTA notifications, not just
> > bounce messages, but the full set. We do that at work.
> >
> Interesting. Can you post an example here?
man
On 05/03/2012 07:23 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Well, FWIW postfix allows you to override all MTA notifications, not just
> bounce messages, but the full set. We do that at work.
>
Interesting. Can you post an example here?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ..
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 02:33:54PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> fwiw, there's just (as in within the past couple of hours) been a change
> committed upstream which defaults accept_8bitmime to true.
Good news.
As mentioned on bug #445013:
-snip-
> accept_8bitmime = true
> I would actually rec
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 03:13:48AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Is this the right time to do it?
>
No, we're about to freeze. I would try and dig out the discussion from
last time, when we were about to freeze, but I'm not sure it's worth it.
If you want to do this, then please look at it during
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 13:14 +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 07:12:42PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > There's nothing particularly wrong with Exim; it works just fine.
>
> Exim in 2012 not supporting 8BITMIME and thus being the last Major MTA
> forcing quoted-printable convers
On Monday 30 April 2012 12:58:18 Carsten Hey wrote:
Hi,
> The rest of this mail is likely not interesting for most of you since it
> only tries to answer the natural follow up question "Why does it need
> a cronjob then?" and explains why I don't think anymore that a switch to
> incron should be
On 04. mai 2012 01:29, Roger Lynn wrote:
On 02/05/12 02:00, brian m. carlson wrote:
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 07:47:08PM +0100, Roger Lynn wrote:
I have enabled accept_8bitmime in every exim I've installed for the last
10 years and no one has reported any problems. I think the risk of
encounterin
On 02/05/12 02:00, brian m. carlson wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 07:47:08PM +0100, Roger Lynn wrote:
>> I have enabled accept_8bitmime in every exim I've installed for the last
>> 10 years and no one has reported any problems. I think the risk of
>> encountering a truly 7 bit MTA in this decade
Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Russell Coker wrote:
> [...]
>> When you send 8 bit mail to a host that only supports 7 bit then it will be
>> corrupted, usually without any notification of what happened - definitely
>> silent corruption.
> [...]
> Have you really seen this happening in this century
On Thu, 3 May 2012, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > All MTA bounce messages are just plain unreadable crap for the average
> > human on Earth, I'm afraid. For some of them, it's even worse than
> > Vogon poetry.
>
> IME this is true even after you translate it to the local language and dum
On Thursday, May 03, 2012 02:45:06 AM Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2012-05-02 20:23:41 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > >On 2012-05-02 15:00:36 +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> > >> Hello,
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, 2 May 2012 10:06:31 +0100
> > >>
> > >> Jon Dowland wrote:
Hi,
On Sonntag, 29. April 2012, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 07:03:11PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > The 500 packages that would have to change their Depends from "exim4 |
> > mta" to something else.
> The brokenness of having to have a default package hardcoded in
> every virt
On 2012-05-02 20:23:41 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> >On 2012-05-02 15:00:36 +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> On Wed, 2 May 2012 10:06:31 +0100
> >> Jon Dowland wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 08:44:12AM +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> >> >
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>On 2012-05-02 15:00:36 +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Wed, 2 May 2012 10:06:31 +0100
>> Jon Dowland wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 08:44:12AM +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
>> > > No it doesn't if 8BITMIME annouces are turned off!
>>
>> > If ex
On 2012-05-02 15:00:36 +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, 2 May 2012 10:06:31 +0100
> Jon Dowland wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 08:44:12AM +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> > > No it doesn't if 8BITMIME annouces are turned off!
>
> > If exim receives an 8 bit mail, even if it
On Wed, 02 May 2012, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> (slightly off-topic)
> Quoting Russell Coker (russ...@coker.com.au):
> > No, bouncing mail when it can't be properly delivered is much better than
> > violating RFCs.
> >
> > Mail that is bounced with a human readable message describing the real
>
(slightly off-topic)
Quoting Russell Coker (russ...@coker.com.au):
> No, bouncing mail when it can't be properly delivered is much better than
> violating RFCs.
>
> Mail that is bounced with a human readable message describing the real cause
> of the problem can then be re-sent once the proble
Russell Coker wrote:
[...]
> When you send 8 bit mail to a host that only supports 7 bit then it will be
> corrupted, usually without any notification of what happened - definitely
> silent corruption.
[...]
Have you really seen this happening in this century? Are there really
MTAs active in t
On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 19:23 +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2012, Jon Dowland wrote:
> > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 07:05:14PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > Having mail be silently corrupted is not acceptable.
> >
> > Can you expand on "silently corrupted", here? Is that when you re-
Hello,
On Wed, 2 May 2012 10:06:31 +0100
Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 08:44:12AM +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> > No it doesn't if 8BITMIME annouces are turned off!
> If exim receives an 8 bit mail, even if it hadn't announced 8BITMIME
> in the EHLO response, it will relay that
On Wed, 2 May 2012, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > It would be possible for a DKIM verification program to re-encode 7bit
> > messages to 8bit for a second attempt at verification. But if a DKIM
> > milter author was going to do tricky things then a better first option
> > would be to try removing an
On Wednesday, May 02, 2012 07:23:13 PM Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2012, Jon Dowland wrote:
> > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 07:05:14PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > Having mail be silently corrupted is not acceptable.
> >
> > Can you expand on "silently corrupted", here? Is that when you
On Wed, 2 May 2012, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 07:05:14PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > Having mail be silently corrupted is not acceptable.
>
> Can you expand on "silently corrupted", here? Is that when you re-encode
> the mail and send it on as 7-bit, or when you leave it al
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 07:05:14PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> Having mail be silently corrupted is not acceptable.
Can you expand on "silently corrupted", here? Is that when you re-encode the
mail and send it on as 7-bit, or when you leave it alone and send it as 8 bit
to a host that doesn't ad
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 08:44:12AM +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> No it doesn't if 8BITMIME annouces are turned off!
If exim receives an 8 bit mail, even if it hadn't announced 8BITMIME in
the EHLO response, it will relay that message verbatim to other hosts.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-
On Wed, 2 May 2012, Riku Voipio wrote:
> It would be a RFC violation to just pass 8bit mails to servers not
> advertizing 8bitmime. It would be rfc compatible to the sending server
> to bounce instead of qp-converting 8bit mails, but that would arguably
> be even worse.
No, bouncing mail when it
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 08:18:07PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> So just stop Postfix doing the conversion?
It's not just postfix, it's at least courier and sendmail and various
propiertary MTA's do conversions when encountering default configured
exims.
It would be a RFC violation to just pass 8b
Hello,
On Tue, 1 May 2012 23:03:38 +0200
Philipp Kern wrote:
> > I wonder why many people in this thread still don't understand this.
> > And also I can't see why some find this annoying behaviour or
> > something wrong. There's absolutely nothing wrong with what it does
> > now, as re-encoding
On 2012-05-01 18:55:20 +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 12:48:10AM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> > I think it would be useful to describe what issue(s) there are concerning
> > 8BITMIME and why this is important. I've found some information [1] about
> > this, but it isn't clea
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 07:47:08PM +0100, Roger Lynn wrote:
> I have enabled accept_8bitmime in every exim I've installed for the last
> 10 years and no one has reported any problems. I think the risk of
> encountering a truly 7 bit MTA in this decade is low enough to be
> ignored for most purposes
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 09:30:23PM +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, 1 May 2012 20:18:07 +0200
> Philipp Kern wrote:
>
> > So just stop Postfix doing the conversion? Or teach Exim to announce
> > 8BITMIME by default.
>
> No, Exim should not announce 8BITMIME, or it will violate
On Tuesday, May 01, 2012 11:55:20, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 12:48:10AM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
...
> > The quoted 2010 survey [2] showed Exim was the most popular MTA (which I
> > found surprising), deployment of Exim growing just slightly faster than
> > Postfix, and everyth
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 09:30:23PM +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2012 20:18:07 +0200
> Philipp Kern wrote:
>
> > So just stop Postfix doing the conversion? Or teach Exim to announce
> > 8BITMIME by default.
>
> No, Exim should not announce 8BITMIME, or it will violate RFC, not
>
Hello,
On Tue, 1 May 2012 20:18:07 +0200
Philipp Kern wrote:
> So just stop Postfix doing the conversion? Or teach Exim to announce
> 8BITMIME by default.
No, Exim should not announce 8BITMIME, or it will violate RFC, not
otherwise. Now it doesn't announce it, but accepts, so RFC-compliant
MUA
On 01/05/12 15:10, Chris Knadle wrote:
> I think the reason Exim does not do this protocol conversion is that from the
> point of view of an MTA author, the point of an MTA is to transmit the body
> of
> the message without any modification to it once received, and body
> modification would be
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 06:55:20PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> It's both extra traffic (not that much if western encodings) and extra
> cpu work. In lesser annoyance, it means that you no longer can read
> mailbox files with non-mime capable readers (for example less) with ease,
> as there will be
On Tuesday, May 01, 2012 06:55:20 PM Riku Voipio wrote:
...
> Honesstly. my grievance is really just having to convert things to 7bit.. s
...
In the future, you're likely to still be stuck doing this for other 'fun'
reasons. The one I ran into recently was that 8 bit -> 7 bit conversions will
br
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 12:48:10AM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> I think it would be useful to describe what issue(s) there are concerning
> 8BITMIME and why this is important. I've found some information [1] about
> this, but it isn't clear what problems are actially *caused* by the lack of
> 8
On Tuesday, May 01, 2012 04:53:03, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 12:48:10AM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> > I think it would be useful to describe what issue(s) there are concerning
> > 8BITMIME and why this is important. I've found some information [1]
> > about this, but it isn't
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 12:48:10AM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> I think it would be useful to describe what issue(s) there are concerning
> 8BITMIME and why this is important. I've found some information [1] about
> this, but it isn't clear what problems are actially *caused* by the lack of
> 8
On Monday, April 30, 2012 06:14:19, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 07:12:42PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
...
> > There's nothing particularly wrong with Exim; it works just fine.
>
> Exim in 2012 not supporting 8BITMIME and thus being the last Major MTA
> forcing quoted-printable con
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 01:55:24PM BST, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Not on a laptop or any machine that has to conserve power and avoid
> unnecessary wakeups / disk spin-ups.
Or any device with an SSD or SD card (more and more popular net-tops
nowadays).
> A cronjob every 5 minutes means you need to s
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [120430 17:09]:
> Riku Voipio writes:
> > Exim in 2012 not supporting 8BITMIME and thus being the last Major MTA
> > forcing quoted-printable conversions to make emails "7bit clean" is
> > quite horribly wrong.
>
> I didn't realize that. I agree, that's an annoy
Riku Voipio writes:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 07:12:42PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I'm not sure that I see the point, and I say that as someone who
>> replaces Exim with Postfix on all of my boxes.
> Nobody's suggesting you need to change to anything. The worst you have
> to do if debian cha
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 07:18:54PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 29, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > The giant endless flamewars on debian-devel required to make a decision to
> > change anything. :)
>
> Unrelated: you have just shown what poisons Debian and has been keeping
> us behind innovation
On 30.04.2012 16:55, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:58:18AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
>> * Russ Allbery [2012-04-29 17:32 -0700]:
[]
>> If dma would be the default MTA, then it should IMHO be as reliable as
>> possible and even try to prevent user errors. If a user would
>> unin
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:58:18AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> * Russ Allbery [2012-04-29 17:32 -0700]:
> > Adam Borowski writes:
> > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:50:45PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> >
> > >> Looks like the DragonFly Mail Agent (dma), which already has been
> > >> mentioned in this
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 07:12:42PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm not sure that I see the point, and I say that as someone who
> replaces Exim with Postfix on all of my boxes.
Nobody's suggesting you need to change to anything. The worst you
have to do if debian changed default MTA, would be to
As I'm not involved in developing dma at all, neither upstream nor in
Debian, I'm not the right one to discuss implementation details in depth
with.
* Russ Allbery [2012-04-29 17:32 -0700]:
> Adam Borowski writes:
> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:50:45PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
>
> >> Looks like
On 04/29/2012 03:13 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Is this the right time to do it?
First lets fix all RC bugs and get other more important things done than
discussing - yet again - the replacement of a well working MTA by a
different well working MTA. Both are equally easy to setup and configure
with
Adam Borowski writes:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:50:45PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
>> Looks like the DragonFly Mail Agent (dma), which already has been
>> mentioned in this thread, could become a decent default for Wheezy+1
>> after some small changes.
>>
>> In a nutshell: it's able to deliver
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:50:45PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> Looks like the DragonFly Mail Agent (dma), which already has been
> mentioned in this thread, could become a decent default for Wheezy+1
> after some small changes.
>
> In a nutshell: it's able to deliver locally and remotely, has a qu
* Joey Hess [2012-04-29 14:22 -0400]:
> Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > It's insane to even think of switching one full featured MTA against
> > another full featured one. It feels like "gosh, i dislike $onepiece,
> > lets all move to $differentpiece", though both are bad as default.
Looks like the Drago
On Sun, 2012-04-29 at 03:13 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Is this the right time to do it?
I'd vote for it :)
Or better said for depending on a default-mta which is going to be
postifx, as already outlined.
Cheers,
Chris.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> It's insane to even think of switching one full featured MTA against
> another full featured one. It feels like "gosh, i dislike $onepiece,
> lets all move to $differentpiece", though both are bad as default.
Yeah, Debian has certianly never done that before ..
(Remember sma
On 12831 March 1977, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Is this the right time to do it?
No.
It never will be.
It's insane to even think of switching one full featured MTA against
another full featured one. It feels like "gosh, i dislike $onepiece,
lets all move to $differentpiece", though both are bad as de
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 07:16:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > The giant endless flamewars on debian-devel required to make a decision to
> > change anything. :)
> IIRC, last time we discussed this I think that even the exim maintainers
> were in favour of the change...
What were the reasons?
On Apr 29, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The giant endless flamewars on debian-devel required to make a decision to
> change anything. :)
Unrelated: you have just shown what poisons Debian and has been keeping
us behind innovation for the last years.
Not the flamewars themselves, most of us are grown u
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 19:08:56 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > The 500 packages that would have to change their Depends from "exim4 |
> > mta" to something else.
>
> We're already on our way to update them with "default-mta |
> mail-transport-agent
On Apr 29, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > What kind of disruption are you thinking about?
> Existing users who are familiar with Exim and who would get Postfix on a
> new install and be surprised.
This does not really look like a big surprise.
If somebody is familiar enough with Exim to modify the defau
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012, Julien Cristau wrote:
> The 500 packages that would have to change their Depends from "exim4 |
> mta" to something else.
We're already on our way to update them with "default-mta |
mail-transport-agent".
That would provide an incentive to finish converting the dependencies :-
Julien Cristau writes:
> The 500 packages that would have to change their Depends from "exim4 |
> mta" to something else.
Well, it would be nice to change all of those to depend on default-mta |
mail-transport-agent anyway, but yeah. Making that low-priority change
urgent would be sort of annoy
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 07:03:11PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> The 500 packages that would have to change their Depends from "exim4 |
> mta" to something else.
The brokenness of having to have a default package hardcoded in
every virtual dependency rather than having a virtual defaults
package
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 09:58:14 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> > On Apr 29, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> desires. The disruption doesn't seem worth it even if we had consensus
>
> > What kind of disruption are you thinking about?
>
> Existing users who are
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Apr 29, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> desires. The disruption doesn't seem worth it even if we had consensus
> What kind of disruption are you thinking about?
Existing users who are familiar with Exim and who would get Postfix on a
new install and be surprise
On Apr 29, Russ Allbery wrote:
> desires. The disruption doesn't seem worth it even if we had consensus
What kind of disruption are you thinking about?
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 12:05:06 +0300, Andrei POPESCU
wrote:
On Sb, 28 apr 12, 19:12:42, Russ Allbery wrote:
There's nothing particularly wrong with Exim; it works just fine.
It's
been the default in Debian for years, and it's actively maintained
upstream. And it's completely trivial to repla
On Sb, 28 apr 12, 19:12:42, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> There's nothing particularly wrong with Exim; it works just fine. It's
> been the default in Debian for years, and it's actively maintained
> upstream. And it's completely trivial to replace it with Postfix if one
> desires. The disruption doe
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> Is this the right time to do it?
I'm not sure that I see the point, and I say that as someone who replaces
Exim with Postfix on all of my boxes.
There's nothing particularly wrong with Exim; it works just fine. It's
been the default in Debian for years, an
71 matches
Mail list logo
