On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Groach wrote:
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
Come on chaps and chapesses. Nothing is going to be concluded between you
too. And having the last word doesnt make one better than the others (and it
still doesnt make you right).
Just agree that neither of you
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
Come on chaps and chapesses. Nothing is going to be concluded between
you too. And having the last word doesnt make one better than the
others (and it still doesnt make you right).
Just agree that neither of you is going to convince the other or l
Ruga wrote:
> RFC-822 is the e-mail standard, without "group addresses". What we do
> complies with the standard.
You are wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Take a look at RFC-822: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0822.txt
Go to Section 6. ADDRESS SPECIFICATION. Look at Section 6.1.
Here's a cop
RFC-822 is the e-mail standard, without "group addresses". What we do complies
with the standard.
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Dianne Skoll <'d...@roaringpenguin.com'> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 03:44:24 -0500
Ruga wrote:
> Proper snail mail and e-mail have addr
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 08:21:28 -0500
Ruga wrote:
[nonsense]
I thought I'd take this opportunity to remind everyone of my Perl package
http://search.cpan.org/~dskoll/Mail-ThreadKiller-1.0.1/lib/Mail/ThreadKiller.pm
Regards,
Dianne.
Remind me to tell you when I use the iPhone.
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Dianne Skoll <'d...@roaringpenguin.com'> wrote:
On February 9, 2017 3:41:32 AM EST, Ruga wrote:
>Let see who can read amon us.
You spelled "among" incorrectly.
>What is your highest level of formal education?
Um? N
Speaking of personal attacks against me, how old are you?
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Reindl Harald <'h.rei...@thelounge.net'> wrote:
Am 09.02.2017 um 09:28 schrieb Ruga:
>> A large class of wanted email comes with the "undisclosed recipients"
>> header. A large class of wanted email come
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 03:44:24 -0500
Ruga wrote:
> Proper snail mail and e-mail have addresses. Those who do not, are
> quickly archived in the trashcan. This is what we do, and it works.
We get it.
I'm overcome with delight that you are implementing the mail policy
that you like. It warms my he
On February 9, 2017 3:41:32 AM EST, Ruga wrote:
>Let see who can read amon us.
You spelled "among" incorrectly.
>What is your highest level of formal education?
Um? None of your business?
Master's degree, if you must know.
-- Dianne
Proper snail mail and e-mail have addresses. Those who do not, are quickly
archived in the trashcan. This is what we do, and it works.
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:13 PM, David Jones <'djo...@ena.com'> wrote:
>From: Ruga
>Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 8:01 AM
>How odd, in a mailing list of sp
> You really don't know how to read, do you?
Now this is a personal attack from you.
Let see who can read amon us.
What is your highest level of formal education?
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Dianne Skoll <'d...@roaringpenguin.com'> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 09:01:35 -0500
Ruga wrote:
>
Stop that. I did not attack anyone.
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Kevin A. McGrail <'kmcgr...@pccc.com'> wrote:
On 2/8/2017 9:04 AM, Ruga wrote:
> Read the headers of RFCs; some o them are explicitly labeled as
> standard. Most of them are request for comments.
I'm well aware of the standards a
> A large class of wanted email comes with the "undisclosed recipients" header.
> A large class of wanted email comes from domains that lack SPF.
Our security policy demands rejection of both types. They do not hit SA. They
are denied as soon as their strings are received. The IP of repeated off
On 2/8/2017 1:36 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Having been through the process of authoring 2 RFC’s, perhaps I can shed some
light on the process for you.
All proposed standards started life as draft RFC’s (this was before the days of
IDEA’s but after the days of IEN’s).
If it were validated
Having been through the process of authoring 2 RFC’s, perhaps I can shed some
light on the process for you.
All proposed standards started life as draft RFC’s (this was before the days of
IDEA’s but after the days of IEN’s).
If it were validated by the working group and passed up to the IAB and
On 2/8/2017 9:04 AM, Ruga wrote:
Read the headers of RFCs; some o them are explicitly labeled as
standard. Most of them are request for comments.
I'm well aware of the standards and don't appreciate being told to read
them. That's a personal attack and you are also attacking others who
are so
On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 09:01:35 -0500
Ruga wrote:
> How odd, in a mailing list of spam fighters someone really wants me
> to accept junk mail.
Wow. You really don't know how to read, do you? What was unclear
about my statement:
Hey, you do you. You can do whatever you want with your mail, bu
>From: Ruga
>Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 8:01 AM
>How odd, in a mailing list of spam fighters someone really
>wants me to accept junk mail.
>In the snail mail box, we put in the trashcan everything that
>does not carry a recipient address. Guess what? We do the
>same with e-mail. And we a
Read the headers of RFCs; some o them are explicitly labeled as standard. Most
of them are request for comments.
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Kevin A. McGrail <'kmcgr...@pccc.com'> wrote:
On 2/8/2017 8:52 AM, Ruga wrote:
> Not all RFCs are standards.
> Educate yourself.
The personal attacks a
How odd, in a mailing list of spam fighters someone really wants me to accept
junk mail.
In the snail mail box, we put in the trashcan everything that does not carry a
recipient address. Guess what? We do the same with e-mail. And we are happy
about it.
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Dianne
On 2/8/2017 8:52 AM, Ruga wrote:
Not all RFCs are standards.
Educate yourself.
The personal attacks aren't necessary. These RFCs are the basis for
effectively 100% of the email on the planet for decades. If that's not
a standard, what is?
Not all RFCs are standards.
Educate yourself.
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas <'uh...@fantomas.sk'>
wrote:
On 07.02.17 18:33, Ruga wrote:
>I follow the actual RFC standard, not the proposed revisions.
what are you talking about?
822, 2822 and
On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 07:16:48 -0500
Ruga wrote:
> It is precisely because I am responsible for other persons that I
> make such rules based upon the RFC standard,
No, you don't. You make the rules based on your misreading of RFC 822.
RFC 822 permits this header:
To: undisclosed recipients:;
E
On Tue, 07 Feb 2017 18:33:49 -0500
Ruga wrote:
> I follow the actual RFC standard, not the proposed revisions.
No you don't. You follow your misunderstanding of the actual standard.
RFC822 permits group syntax. It's right in the ABNF. Learn to read
carefully.
Here's a hint, taken directly fr
On 07.02.17 18:33, Ruga wrote:
I follow the actual RFC standard, not the proposed revisions.
what are you talking about?
822, 2822 and 5322 all define group address form as allowed.
If the sender hides the recipients, why should I care delivering its junk
to my valued accounts?
you can crea
> you can do that for your *personal* mailserver but most admins on that
> planet are also repsonsible for other peoles mailbox and you can't apply
> such interpretation of rules their because your primary job is *to
> receive and deliver emails* and not to reject them and educate the world
> if i
> So, Ruga, if you just want to BCC a bunch of people, what do you propose
> [we] should be put into the To: header?
I would use this or similar:
To: no-re...@your.domain.com
A mailing list does not need to hide the recipients.
This mailing list, for example, uses a good policy.
Original Message
Subject: Re: RFC compliance pedantry (was Re: New type of monstrosity)
Local Time: 8 February 2017 3:04 AM
UTC Time: 8 February 2017 02:04
From: i
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On 2017-02-07 18:33, Ruga wrote:
I follow the actual RFC standard, not the proposed revisions. The To
From and Cc fields are defined by a grammar AND a natural language
description. Such fields MUST hold addresses, were an address is a
username the "@"
On 2017-02-07 18:33, Ruga wrote:
> I follow the actual RFC standard, not the proposed revisions. The To
> From and Cc fields are defined by a grammar AND a natural language
> description. Such fields MUST hold addresses, were an address is a
> username the "@" symbol and a domain name. The string
I follow the actual RFC standard, not the proposed revisions. The To From and
Cc fields are defined by a grammar AND a natural language description. Such
fields MUST hold addresses, were an address is a username the "@" symbol and a
domain name. The string "undisclosed recipients: ;" does not pa
On Feb 7, 2017, at 12:57 AM, Ruga wrote:
> The spample would never make it to our SA. It would be rejected upstream for
> at least two reasons:
>
> > To: undisclosed recipients: ;
> The To header is not RFC compliant.
Where do you get that idea? “Undisclosed recipient: ;” is a group address.
On Tue, 07 Feb 2017 02:57:06 -0500
Ruga wrote:
> > To: undisclosed recipients: ;
> The To header is not RFC compliant.
Yes it is. RFC 5322 even gives the header Cc: undisclosed recipients: ;
as an example in Appendix A.1.3, Group Addresses.
> The Subject header exceeds the
> maximum line leng
On 2017-02-07 09:37, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> 11.5 - 3.5 = 8.0
And of course 1.2.3.x is not the true relay address, so
> 1.5 BOTNET Relay might be a spambot or virusbot
> [botnet0.8,ip=1.2.3.12,rdns=disorder.censored.net,maildomain=outlook.fr,baddns]
this goes out of the
On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 18:46:47 -0800
Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On 2017-02-06 20:06, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
> > > Last couple of weeks I saw some messages whose entire contents is
> > > in the Subject.
>
> > never seen such a monster. likely killed by some other piece in the
> > puzzle. Throw it
On Tue, 07 Feb 2017 02:57:06 -0500
Ruga wrote:
> The spample would never make it to our SA. It would be rejected
> upstream for at least two reasons:
>
> > To: undisclosed recipients: ;
>
>
> The To header is not RFC compliant.The Subject header exceeds the
> maximum line length,
You can rej
On 2/7/2017 2:57 AM, Ruga wrote:
The spample would never make it to our SA. It would be rejected
upstream for at least two reasons:
That was my thought as well. I've never seen this type of spam and that
was my expectation as well.
On 07.02.17 02:57, Ruga wrote:
The spample would never make it to our SA. It would be rejected upstream for at
least two reasons:
To: undisclosed recipients: ;
The To header is not RFC compliant.
but very common...
The Subject header exceeds the maximum line length, being another RFC
c
Ian Zimmerman kirjoitti 7.2.2017 4:46:
On 2017-02-06 20:06, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Last couple of weeks I saw some messages whose entire contents is in
> the Subject.
never seen such a monster. likely killed by some other piece in the
puzzle. Throw it up on pastebin?
http://pastebin.c
The spample would never make it to our SA. It would be rejected upstream for at
least two reasons:
> To: undisclosed recipients: ;
The To header is not RFC compliant.The Subject header exceeds the maximum line
length, being another RFC constraints. It is easy to catch spam this way.
On Tue, Fe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ian Zimmerman kirjoitti 7.2.2017 4:46:
> On 2017-02-06 20:06, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
>> > Last couple of weeks I saw some messages whose entire contents is in
>> > the Subject.
>
>> never seen such a monster. likely killed by some other piece in
On 2017-02-06 20:06, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> > Last couple of weeks I saw some messages whose entire contents is in
> > the Subject.
> never seen such a monster. likely killed by some other piece in the
> puzzle. Throw it up on pastebin?
http://pastebin.com/PYaMcZa7
(I was wrong, the subjec
On 2/6/2017 7:52 PM, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
Last couple of weeks I saw some messages whose entire contents is in the
Subject. They have both a text/plain and text/html part but both are
empty (in the case of html, there is some markup but no character
data). The Subject is maybe 400 or 500 chars
Last couple of weeks I saw some messages whose entire contents is in the
Subject. They have both a text/plain and text/html part but both are
empty (in the case of html, there is some markup but no character
data). The Subject is maybe 400 or 500 chars long.
Needless to say, this is a 100% spam
44 matches
Mail list logo
