Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #264965 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-12-20 14:00 +0100 |
| Last post | 2023-12-21 02:40 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 82 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 14:00 +0100
Re: lists Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-12-20 14:10 +0100
Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 14:40 +0100
Re: lists Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-12-20 14:50 +0100
Re: lists <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-12-20 14:50 +0100
Re: lists Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2023-12-20 16:10 +0100
Re: lists Christoph Brinkhaus <c.brinkhaus@t-online.de> - 2023-12-20 16:20 +0100
Re: lists Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2023-12-20 16:20 +0100
Re: lists Christoph Brinkhaus <c.brinkhaus@t-online.de> - 2023-12-20 16:30 +0100
Re: lists Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d63c@ewoof.net> - 2023-12-20 16:50 +0100
Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 16:30 +0100
Re: lists Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2023-12-20 16:40 +0100
Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 16:50 +0100
Re: lists Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-12-20 17:00 +0100
Re: lists Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2023-12-20 17:00 +0100
Re: lists "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2023-12-20 17:30 +0100
Re: lists Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2023-12-20 17:40 +0100
Re: lists Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-12-20 17:00 +0100
Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 17:10 +0100
Re: lists Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2023-12-20 17:20 +0100
Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 17:20 +0100
Re: lists <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-12-20 17:30 +0100
Re: lists Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2023-12-20 17:40 +0100
Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 17:40 +0100
Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 17:50 +0100
Re: lists <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-12-20 17:50 +0100
Re: lists Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2023-12-20 17:50 +0100
Re: lists Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-12-20 18:00 +0100
Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 18:10 +0100
Re: lists Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d63c@ewoof.net> - 2023-12-20 19:30 +0100
Re: lists Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-12-20 17:50 +0100
Re: lists Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-12-20 17:40 +0100
Re: lists <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-12-20 17:50 +0100
Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 18:10 +0100
Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 17:50 +0100
Re: lists Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2023-12-20 19:30 +0100
Re: lists Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-12-20 17:40 +0100
Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 17:40 +0100
Re: lists Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2023-12-20 17:00 +0100
Re: lists Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2023-12-20 17:20 +0100
Re: lists <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-12-20 17:30 +0100
Re: lists Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2023-12-20 17:50 +0100
Re: lists Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2023-12-20 18:00 +0100
Re: lists Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2023-12-20 18:00 +0100
Re: lists gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2023-12-20 18:00 +0100
Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 18:10 +0100
Re: lists Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2023-12-20 19:20 +0100
Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 19:30 +0100
Re: lists Hanno 'Rince' Wagner <wagner@debian.org> - 2023-12-20 19:50 +0100
Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 20:10 +0100
Re: lists Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2023-12-20 20:20 +0100
Re: lists Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2023-12-20 21:00 +0100
Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 21:10 +0100
Re: lists Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2023-12-20 21:30 +0100
Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 21:50 +0100
Re: lists gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2023-12-21 00:00 +0100
Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-21 00:20 +0100
Re: lists John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2023-12-21 00:50 +0100
Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-21 01:00 +0100
Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists] "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2023-12-21 11:40 +0100
Re: Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists] Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-21 11:50 +0100
Re: Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists] Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-12-21 12:40 +0100
Re: Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists] Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-21 13:40 +0100
Re: Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists] Byung-Hee HWANG <soyeomul@doraji.xyz> - 2023-12-21 14:20 +0100
Re: Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists] Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-12-21 14:50 +0100
Re: Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists] Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-21 15:00 +0100
Re: Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists] Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-12-21 15:10 +0100
Re: Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists] Hanno 'Rince' Wagner <wagner@debian.org> - 2023-12-21 15:20 +0100
Re: Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists] Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-21 15:30 +0100
Re: lists gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2023-12-20 23:40 +0100
Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-21 00:00 +0100
Re: lists Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2023-12-21 00:10 +0100
Re: wireless broadband providers exist (was: lists) Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2023-12-21 01:50 +0100
Re: wireless broadband providers exist The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2023-12-21 01:50 +0100
Re: wireless broadband providers exist Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-21 02:10 +0100
Re: wireless broadband providers exist Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2023-12-21 02:50 +0100
Re: wireless broadband providers exist Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-21 03:30 +0100
Re: wireless broadband providers exist John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2023-12-21 05:30 +0100
Re: wireless broadband providers exist John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2023-12-21 05:20 +0100
Re: wireless broadband providers exist Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-21 02:00 +0100
Re: wireless broadband providers exist Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2023-12-21 02:30 +0100
Re: wireless broadband providers exist Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-21 02:40 +0100
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-20 17:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <HN7Ci-eTJ1-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #264993 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 05:14:05PM +0100, Marco Moock wrote: > Am 20.12.2023 um 15:58:48 Uhr schrieb Joe: > > > For many years my SMTP server has requested an ident (TCP port 113) > > from outside sending servers. Since nobody now runs ident servers, > > there will be no reply, and my server waits for a timeout of thirty > > seconds before continuing. > > Good admins don't use DROP in firewalls, so either you get a TCP RST > (because no application listens on that port) or a ICMP administratively > prohibited, so your server knows that no identd runs there and can > continue. Hm. For the wide internet I'd recommend drop (makes port scanning more difficult). For "internal" networks, reject is the way to go (unless you crave for fun debugging sessions, been there). Cheers -- t
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-20 17:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <HN7VE-eTQ8-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #264993 |
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 17:14:05 +0100 Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote: > Am 20.12.2023 um 15:58:48 Uhr schrieb Joe: > > > For many years my SMTP server has requested an ident (TCP port 113) > > from outside sending servers. Since nobody now runs ident servers, > > there will be no reply, and my server waits for a timeout of thirty > > seconds before continuing. > > Good admins don't use DROP in firewalls, so either you get a TCP RST > (because no application listens on that port) or a ICMP > administratively prohibited, so your server knows that no identd runs > there and can continue. > I'm not actually looking for an ident reply, I'm looking to hold up the transaction for thirty seconds to weed out the spambots. This is a convenient way to do it. I mentioned it after the practice of ignoring the first SMTP contact was referred to, to achieve more or less the same thing. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-20 18:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <HN85j-eTTt-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #265004 |
Am 20.12.2023 um 16:49:17 Uhr schrieb Joe: > I'm not actually looking for an ident reply, I'm looking to hold up > the transaction for thirty seconds to weed out the spambots. This is a > convenient way to do it. sendmail offers the FEATURE GreetPause for exactly that behavior - without using ident.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-20 18:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <HN85j-eTTt-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #265010 |
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 17:51:52 +0100 Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote: > Am 20.12.2023 um 16:49:17 Uhr schrieb Joe: > > > I'm not actually looking for an ident reply, I'm looking to hold up > > the transaction for thirty seconds to weed out the spambots. This > > is a convenient way to do it. > > sendmail offers the FEATURE GreetPause for exactly that behavior - > without using ident. > OK. I'm using Exim4. It can be done by fiddling with the ACLs but I prefer to do as little there as possible. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-20 18:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <HN85j-eTTt-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #264969 |
On 12/20/23 08:30, Pocket wrote: > > On 12/20/23 07:59, Andy Smith wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 07:38:49AM -0500, Pocket wrote: >>> which pocket@columbus.rr.com >> Not sure what you're trying to achieve but these administrative >> commands should go to the mailing list software at >> <majordomo@lists.debian.org>, not to debian-user@, which is the list >> itself and its thousands of subscribers. >> >> (A pity the list software does not automatically hold mails with >> administrative commands in them, like Mailman does.) >> >> Thanks, >> Andy >> > > Every 60 days I get kicked from this list which I receive an email > stating my kick value is 2%. > > I then try to see if I am subscribed by the web and sending emails to the > > majordomo@lists.debian.org which fails, > > trying to subscribe from the web gets me gateway errors. > > > . I get those too, but a little more often, but you may be miss-readiing the message. What I get says the kick score is 2%, but you've got to hit 80% to get autokicked. Have you look at the link to the message? Here its never been a legit msg, always spam or phishing that should have been rejected by the list server at debian. So unless some black hat blasts a phishing expedition through the server and your ISP rejects that crap wholesale, which they should, your kick score will stay at 2% which is well below the kick trigger. I've got to the point where I look at the kick score and if 2%, delete it. Cheers, Gene Heskett. -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940) If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-20 18:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <HN8f0-eUc8-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #265011 |
On 12/20/23 11:51, gene heskett wrote: > On 12/20/23 08:30, Pocket wrote: >> >> On 12/20/23 07:59, Andy Smith wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 07:38:49AM -0500, Pocket wrote: >>>> which pocket@columbus.rr.com >>> Not sure what you're trying to achieve but these administrative >>> commands should go to the mailing list software at >>> <majordomo@lists.debian.org>, not to debian-user@, which is the list >>> itself and its thousands of subscribers. >>> >>> (A pity the list software does not automatically hold mails with >>> administrative commands in them, like Mailman does.) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Andy >>> >> >> Every 60 days I get kicked from this list which I receive an email >> stating my kick value is 2%. >> >> I then try to see if I am subscribed by the web and sending emails to >> the >> >> majordomo@lists.debian.org which fails, >> >> trying to subscribe from the web gets me gateway errors. >> >> >> . > I get those too, but a little more often, but you may be miss-readiing > the message. What I get says the kick score is 2%, but you've got to > hit 80% to get autokicked. I was kicked at 2% > > Have you look at the link to the message? Here its never been a legit > msg, always spam or phishing that should have been rejected by the > list server at debian. So unless some black hat blasts a phishing > expedition through the server and your ISP rejects that crap > wholesale, which they should, your kick score will stay at 2% which is > well below the kick trigger. I've got to the point where I look at > the kick score and if 2%, delete it. > Cheers, Gene Heskett. I made a pdf of the email from the link in the bounce message, for the "record" If I get one bounce email I am banned, I will never get to even 10% as 2% and I am gone. -- Hindi madali ang maging ako
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-20 19:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <HN9kK-eUNU-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #265015 |
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 12:05:26PM -0500, Pocket wrote: > I was kicked at 2% How do you *know*? What you *know* is that you *saw* *one* email message stating that emails have been trouble reaching you, and that if this continues, you will be unsubscribed. What if there were more, that you did *not* see? Because they didn't get through. If mail isn't reaching you, then the mail *telling* you that mail isn't reaching you may also not reach you. You also claim that you were unsubscribed, which is evidence *for* the theory that multiple failures occurred. Even if you didn't see all of them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-20 19:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <HN9up-eURj-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #265017 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 12/20/23 13:17, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 12:05:26PM -0500, Pocket wrote: >> I was kicked at 2% > How do you *know*? > > What you *know* is that you *saw* *one* email message stating that > emails have been trouble reaching you, and that if this continues, > you will be unsubscribed. > > What if there were more, that you did *not* see? Because they didn't > get through. If mail isn't reaching you, then the mail *telling* you > that mail isn't reaching you may also not reach you. Because some one from the list admin told me it was one. I was only sent that one bounce/kick email, so there is that...... > > You also claim that you were unsubscribed, which is evidence *for* the > theory that multiple failures occurred. Even if you didn't see all > of them. Yes it appears that I was unsubscribed, on just that one incidence. The better question is why wasn't I unsubscribed from all debian lists? -- Hindi madali ang maging ako
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hanno 'Rince' Wagner <wagner@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-20 19:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <HN9NM-eUZY-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #265018 |
Hi everybody, On Wed, 20 Dec 2023, Pocket wrote: > > What if there were more, that you did *not* see? Because they didn't > > get through. If mail isn't reaching you, then the mail *telling* you > > that mail isn't reaching you may also not reach you. > > > Because some one from the list admin told me it was one. > > I was only sent that one bounce/kick email, so there is that...... we have sent you one _notification_ about the bounces. but if there were more bounces there was no further notification because the mailsystem wasn't able to deliver the mail to you. that is what you were told. so, the collegues here are correct: there were more bounces since debian-user is a busy mailinglist and you get unsusbcribed because your provider chose to reject mails sent to you. best regards, Hanno Wagner -- | Hanno Wagner | Member of the HTML Writers Guild | Rince@IRC | | Eine gewerbliche Nutzung meiner Email-Adressen ist nicht gestattet! | | 74 a3 53 cc 0b 19 - we did it! | Generation @ | #Ein Unix-Fan ist in etwa so deplaziert wie ein Klopapier-Fan. #Man benutzt es, oder man benutzt es nicht; das ist alles. # #Und natuerlich ruempft man seine Nase ueber die, die glauben #darauf verzichten zu koennen...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-20 20:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <HNa77-eVpQ-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #265023 |
On 12/20/23 13:40, Hanno 'Rince' Wagner wrote: > Hi everybody, > > On Wed, 20 Dec 2023, Pocket wrote: > >>> What if there were more, that you did *not* see? Because they didn't >>> get through. If mail isn't reaching you, then the mail *telling* you >>> that mail isn't reaching you may also not reach you. >> >> Because some one from the list admin told me it was one. >> >> I was only sent that one bounce/kick email, so there is that...... > we have sent you one _notification_ about the bounces. but if there > were more bounces there was no further notification because the > mailsystem wasn't able to deliver the mail to you. that is what you > were told. I have emails from other lists and personal email from other with the same time frame So in this case it was not because the email box/account was not available. That only leaves the number of sessions that were opened. How many sessions were opened sending that one email? second question does bendel.debian.org handle all the mail for all debian lists? And could that be the reason to multiple sessions were opened from debian list servers? If that is the case then why no bounces occurred for the other lists > > so, the collegues here are correct: there were more bounces since > debian-user is a busy mailinglist and you get unsusbcribed because > your provider chose to reject mails sent to you. > -- Hindi madali ang maging ako
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-20 20:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <HNagN-eVu6-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #265024 |
Am 20.12.2023 um 14:04:41 Uhr schrieb Pocket: > I have emails from other lists and personal email from other with the > same time frame > > So in this case it was not because the email box/account was not > available. Are you really that thick as a brick that you don't understand that this is specific to the sender IP, in that case the Debian mailinglist server? > That only leaves the number of sessions that were opened. > > How many sessions were opened sending that one email? Only one can be opened for that. But multiple connections might exist for multiple mails, maybe also for different users. Your ISP blocks those with a hard error and that is the fault. There is no hard limit in the SMTP RFC. Your mailbox provider is the fault here. > second question does bendel.debian.org handle all the mail for all > debian lists? There are other servers too that handle some mailing lists (e.g. for bug reports), but bendel handles the "normal" Debian mailing lists that end with @lists.debian.org. > And could that be the reason to multiple sessions were opened from > debian list servers? No, the reason is that SMTP doesn't specify that only a special amount of connections can be established, but your provider enforces that and give back a hard fail (5xx error). If your mailbox provider handled that properly, it gave a 4xx error, so bendel tries it again after a certain amount of time. > If that is the case then why no bounces occurred for the other lists Ask your mailbox provider for the logs to find out, we can't tell you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-20 21:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <HNaTw-eVHa-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #265025 |
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 2:14 PM Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote: > > Am 20.12.2023 um 14:04:41 Uhr schrieb Pocket: > > > [...] > > And could that be the reason to multiple sessions were opened from > > debian list servers? > > No, the reason is that SMTP doesn't specify that only a special > amount of connections can be established, but your provider enforces > that and give back a hard fail (5xx error). In the old days (up until about the mid 2000s or early 2010s, the Hosts RFC set the limit of concurrent connections to a host to 2. The last time I checked, that limitation was removed from the RFCs. Probably to pander to Browsers so they [the browsers] could have multiple requests in-flight. (The IETF appears to be captured by the CA/BF). It would not surprise me if the "2 concurrent connection" artifact was still lurking around somewhere, like in Majordomo. Jeff
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-20 21:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <HNb3b-eVZO-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #265025 |
Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 20, 2023, at 2:14 PM, Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote: > > Am 20.12.2023 um 14:04:41 Uhr schrieb Pocket: > >> I have emails from other lists and personal email from other with the >> same time frame >> >> So in this case it was not because the email box/account was not >> available. > > Are you really that thick as a brick that you don't understand that > this is specific to the sender IP, in that case the Debian mailinglist > server? > Ignoring your personal attack, has it occured that if spectrum blocked bendel that i would lose all my subscribed lists . Which i have not. As others here received the same bounce ails could it also be yrue that the user list rmails look like spam to the ISP? This issue seems to only be associated with this list only >> That only leaves the number of sessions that were opened. >> >> How many sessions were opened sending that one email? > > Only one can be opened for that. > But multiple connections might exist for multiple mails, maybe also for > different users. > > Your ISP blocks those with a hard error and that is the fault. > > There is no hard limit in the SMTP RFC. > Your mailbox provider is the fault here. > >> second question does bendel.debian.org handle all the mail for all >> debian lists? > > There are other servers too that handle some mailing lists (e.g. for > bug reports), but bendel handles the "normal" Debian mailing lists that > end with @lists.debian.org. > > >> And could that be the reason to multiple sessions were opened from >> debian list servers? > > No, the reason is that SMTP doesn't specify that only a special > amount of connections can be established, but your provider enforces > that and give back a hard fail (5xx error). > If your mailbox provider handled that properly, it gave a 4xx error, so > bendel tries it again after a certain amount of time. > >> If that is the case then why no bounces occurred for the other lists > > Ask your mailbox provider for the logs to find out, we can't tell you. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-20 21:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <HNbmx-eW67-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #265029 |
Am 20.12.2023 um 15:08:32 Uhr schrieb Pocket: > Sent from my iPhone Nobody is interested in that, maybe the auto-unsubscribe is a good thing for all other list members. > > On Dec 20, 2023, at 2:14 PM, Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote: > > > > Am 20.12.2023 um 14:04:41 Uhr schrieb Pocket: > > > >> I have emails from other lists and personal email from other with > >> the same time frame > >> > >> So in this case it was not because the email box/account was not > >> available. > > > > Are you really that thick as a brick that you don't understand that > > this is specific to the sender IP, in that case the Debian > > mailinglist server? > > > > Ignoring your personal attack, has it occured that if spectrum > blocked bendel that i would lose all my subscribed lists . Which i > have not. If there is a rate-limit, only those connections are denied that excess that limit. Exactly that explains why you received some messages. > As others here received the same bounce ails could it also be yrue > that the user list rmails look like spam to the ISP? Ask your ISP. > This issue seems to only be associated with this list only Most likely because many messages arrive here - other lists don't have that much traffic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-20 21:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <HNbFT-eWcw-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #265030 |
Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 20, 2023, at 3:29 PM, Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote: > > Am 20.12.2023 um 15:08:32 Uhr schrieb Pocket: > >> Sent from my iPhone > > Nobody is interested in that, maybe the auto-unsubscribe is a good > thing for all other list members. > Nobady is interested in you pointing that out >>>> On Dec 20, 2023, at 2:14 PM, Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote: >>> >>> Am 20.12.2023 um 14:04:41 Uhr schrieb Pocket: >>> >>>> I have emails from other lists and personal email from other with >>>> the same time frame >>>> >>>> So in this case it was not because the email box/account was not >>>> available. >>> >>> Are you really that thick as a brick that you don't understand that >>> this is specific to the sender IP, in that case the Debian >>> mailinglist server? >>> >> >> Ignoring your personal attack, has it occured that if spectrum >> blocked bendel that i would lose all my subscribed lists . Which i >> have not. > > If there is a rate-limit, only those connections are denied that excess > that limit. Exactly that explains why you received some messages. > >> As others here received the same bounce ails could it also be yrue >> that the user list rmails look like spam to the ISP? > > Ask your ISP. > >> This issue seems to only be associated with this list only > > Most likely because many messages arrive here - other lists don't have > that much traffic. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-21 00:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <HNdHH-eXo6-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #265025 |
On 12/20/23 14:14, Marco Moock wrote: > Am 20.12.2023 um 14:04:41 Uhr schrieb Pocket: > >> I have emails from other lists and personal email from other with the >> same time frame >> >> So in this case it was not because the email box/account was not >> available. > > Are you really that thick as a brick that you don't understand that > this is specific to the sender IP, in that case the Debian mailinglist > server? > >> That only leaves the number of sessions that were opened. >> >> How many sessions were opened sending that one email? > > Only one can be opened for that. > But multiple connections might exist for multiple mails, maybe also for > different users. > > Your ISP blocks those with a hard error and that is the fault. > > There is no hard limit in the SMTP RFC. > Your mailbox provider is the fault here. > >> second question does bendel.debian.org handle all the mail for all >> debian lists? > > There are other servers too that handle some mailing lists (e.g. for > bug reports), but bendel handles the "normal" Debian mailing lists that > end with @lists.debian.org. > > >> And could that be the reason to multiple sessions were opened from >> debian list servers? > > No, the reason is that SMTP doesn't specify that only a special > amount of connections can be established, but your provider enforces > that and give back a hard fail (5xx error). > If your mailbox provider handled that properly, it gave a 4xx error, so > bendel tries it again after a certain amount of time. > >> If that is the case then why no bounces occurred for the other lists > > Ask your mailbox provider for the logs to find out, we can't tell you. > I think I need to point out that this email service DOES NOT HAVE TO BE LOCAL TO YOUR LOCALE. I am a customer of the Shentel cable system, but they farm out the email by a subcontract to a dovecot provider called mail2world. I am in north central WV, they are in Seattle Wash. Proving that the physical mail server doesn't have to be local. You've been drinking the koolaid if you think that server has to be in your locality. It doesn't. > . Cheers, Gene Heskett. -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940) If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-21 00:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <HNe13-eXJJ-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #265035 |
On 12/20/23 17:59, gene heskett wrote: > On 12/20/23 14:14, Marco Moock wrote: >> Am 20.12.2023 um 14:04:41 Uhr schrieb Pocket: >> >>> I have emails from other lists and personal email from other with the >>> same time frame >>> >>> So in this case it was not because the email box/account was not >>> available. >> >> Are you really that thick as a brick that you don't understand that >> this is specific to the sender IP, in that case the Debian mailinglist >> server? >> >>> That only leaves the number of sessions that were opened. >>> >>> How many sessions were opened sending that one email? >> >> Only one can be opened for that. >> But multiple connections might exist for multiple mails, maybe also for >> different users. >> >> Your ISP blocks those with a hard error and that is the fault. >> >> There is no hard limit in the SMTP RFC. >> Your mailbox provider is the fault here. >> >>> second question does bendel.debian.org handle all the mail for all >>> debian lists? >> >> There are other servers too that handle some mailing lists (e.g. for >> bug reports), but bendel handles the "normal" Debian mailing lists that >> end with @lists.debian.org. >> >> >>> And could that be the reason to multiple sessions were opened from >>> debian list servers? >> >> No, the reason is that SMTP doesn't specify that only a special >> amount of connections can be established, but your provider enforces >> that and give back a hard fail (5xx error). >> If your mailbox provider handled that properly, it gave a 4xx error, so >> bendel tries it again after a certain amount of time. >> >>> If that is the case then why no bounces occurred for the other lists >> >> Ask your mailbox provider for the logs to find out, we can't tell you. >> > I think I need to point out that this email service DOES NOT HAVE TO > BE LOCAL TO YOUR LOCALE. I am a customer of the Shentel cable system, > but they farm out the email by a subcontract to a dovecot provider > called mail2world. I am in north central WV, they are in Seattle Wash. > Proving that the physical mail server doesn't have to be local. You've > been drinking the koolaid if you think that server has to be in your > locality. It doesn't. > I never implied that, only that the ISP services are spectrum only in the area I live. I have spoken -- Hindi madali ang maging ako
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-21 00:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <HNeu6-eXTw-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #265038 |
pocket writes: > I never implied that, only that the ISP services are spectrum only in the > area I live. No Starlik? In any case what ISP you use is unrelated to what email provider you use. I use pobox.com, but there are others. -- John Hasler john@sugarbit.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-21 01:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <HNeDL-eXWx-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #265039 |
On 12/20/23 18:41, John Hasler wrote: > pocket writes: >> I never implied that, only that the ISP services are spectrum only in the >> area I live. > No Starlik? In any case what ISP you use is unrelated to what email > provider you use. I use pobox.com, but there are others. No starlink I have spoken -- Hindi madali ang maging ako
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-21 11:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists] |
| Message-ID | <HNoD7-f4jV-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #265040 |
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 06:57:50PM -0500, Pocket wrote: > Could we please stop the thread now? You appear to be talking past each other at this point. Various suggestions as to the nature of the problem and possible solutions have been put forward - it is absolutely for you to choose whatever you wish to do but can we please end the discussion now. The aim in this list is to be constructive and helpful - sometimes lengthy threads wear that thin. Andy > On 12/20/23 18:41, John Hasler wrote: > > pocket writes: > > > I never implied that, only that the ISP services are spectrum only in the > > > area I live. > > No Starlik? In any case what ISP you use is unrelated to what email > > provider you use. I use pobox.com, but there are others. > > No starlink > > I have spoken > > -- > Hindi madali ang maging ako >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web