Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #280433 > unrolled thread

ግěcůžላኣዝዩ

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  ግěcůžላኣዝዩ mullerrogatien@gmail.com - 2025-06-24 09:40 +0200
    Re: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ 🦓 <czyborra@gmail.com> - 2025-06-24 11:50 +0200
      Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2025-06-24 12:10 +0200
        Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ] Dan Hitt <dan.hitt@gmail.com> - 2025-06-25 01:40 +0200
          Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ] Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> - 2025-06-25 01:50 +0200
          Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ] Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2025-06-25 02:00 +0200
            Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ] Dan Hitt <dan.hitt@gmail.com> - 2025-06-25 02:50 +0200
              Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2025-06-25 08:50 +0200
            Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was:  ግěcůžላኣዝዩ] Greg <curtyshoo@gmail.com> - 2025-06-25 17:20 +0200
              Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2025-06-25 18:10 +0200
                Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ] John Crawley <john@bunsenlabs.org> - 2025-06-27 04:20 +0200
                  Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ] Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2025-06-27 05:30 +0200
                    Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ] Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> - 2025-06-27 05:50 +0200
                    Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was:  ግěcůžላኣዝዩ] Greg <curtyshoo@gmail.com> - 2025-06-27 15:50 +0200
                      Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2025-06-27 16:10 +0200
                        Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list Greg <curtyshoo@gmail.com> - 2025-06-27 16:20 +0200
                          Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2025-06-27 16:50 +0200
                            Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2025-06-27 23:00 +0200
                      Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ] Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2025-06-27 16:40 +0200
                        Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> - 2025-06-27 16:50 +0200
                        Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was:  ግěcůžላኣዝዩ] Greg <curtyshoo@gmail.com> - 2025-06-27 16:50 +0200
                          Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ] Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2025-06-27 17:40 +0200
                          Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ] Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2025-06-27 19:10 +0200
                          Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ] John Crawley <john@bunsenlabs.org> - 2025-06-28 03:20 +0200
                            Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list Stephan Seitz <stse+debian@rootsland.net> - 2025-06-28 12:10 +0200
                              Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2025-06-28 13:20 +0200
                                Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2025-06-29 11:20 +0200
                  Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ] Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2025-06-27 06:30 +0200
                  Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ] Thomas Dineen <tdineen2021@gmail.com> - 2025-06-27 08:50 +0200
                  Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2025-06-27 09:20 +0200
                    Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ] John Crawley <john@bunsenlabs.org> - 2025-06-27 10:10 +0200
                      Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2025-06-27 10:50 +0200
                        Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ] John Crawley <john@bunsenlabs.org> - 2025-06-28 03:10 +0200
                  Using MUAs to bounce mail (was: Please, don't reply to spam ...) Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> - 2025-06-29 12:30 +0200
                    Re: Using MUAs to bounce mail (was: Please, don't reply to spam ...) Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2025-06-29 12:50 +0200
                      Re: Using MUAs to bounce mail (was: Please, don't reply to spam ...) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2025-06-29 14:20 +0200
                    Re: Using MUAs to bounce mail (was: Please, don't reply to spam ...) Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2025-06-29 14:20 +0200
      Re: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ Sand <sand@cybert.me> - 2025-06-24 12:10 +0200
        Re: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ 🦓 <czyborra@gmail.com> - 2025-06-24 13:10 +0200
          Spam on this list, top-posting and things. <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2025-06-24 13:40 +0200
          Re: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ Frank Weißer <linux@weisser-ol.de> - 2025-06-24 13:40 +0200
            Re: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ 🦓 <czyborra@gmail.com> - 2025-06-24 14:10 +0200
              [subject censored] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2025-06-24 14:20 +0200

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#280482 — Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ]

On 2025-06-27, Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Bounce can and does mean a rejection of the email by the *server*, so
>> your proposal seems nonsensical or confusing, as the email has
>> already been delivered to its recipients.
>
> I am not proposing anything.  I am *explaining*.
>
> This is the terminology that mutt uses.

It is not the accepted meaning of the term.

https://github.com/mjg59/jargon/blob/master/bounce

:bounce: v. 1. [common; perhaps by analogy to a bouncing check] An
electronic mail message that is undeliverable and returns an error
notification to the sender is said to bounce. see also {bounce message}.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#280483 — Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ]

Greg (HE12025-06-27):
> It is not the accepted meaning of the term.

Did you not already tell that? Was not Greg Wooledge precisely replying
to that?

-- 
  Nicolas George

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#280484 — Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 10:47 AM Greg <curtyshoo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2025-06-27, Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Bounce can and does mean a rejection of the email by the *server*, so
> >> your proposal seems nonsensical or confusing, as the email has
> >> already been delivered to its recipients.
> >
> > I am not proposing anything.  I am *explaining*.
> >
> > This is the terminology that mutt uses.
>
> It is not the accepted meaning of the term.
>
> https://github.com/mjg59/jargon/blob/master/bounce
>
> :bounce: v. 1. [common; perhaps by analogy to a bouncing check] An
> electronic mail message that is undeliverable and returns an error
> notification to the sender is said to bounce. see also {bounce message}.

RFC 5321, Section 6.2, might also help
(<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5321#section-6.2>):

  6.2.  Unwanted, Unsolicited, and "Attack" Messages

   Utility and predictability of the Internet mail system requires that
   messages that can be delivered should be delivered, regardless of any
   syntax or other faults associated with those messages and regardless
   of their content.  If they cannot be delivered, and cannot be
   rejected by the SMTP server during the SMTP transaction, they should
   be "bounced" (returned with non-delivery notification messages) as
   described above.  In today's world, in which many SMTP server
   operators have discovered that the quantity of undesirable bulk email
   vastly exceeds the quantity of desired mail and in which accepting a
   message may trigger additional undesirable traffic by providing
   verification of the address, those principles may not be practical.

   As discussed in Section 7.8 and Section 7.9 below, dropping mail
   without notification of the sender is permitted in practice.
   However, it is extremely dangerous and violates a long tradition and
   community expectations that mail is either delivered or returned.  If

   silent message-dropping is misused, it could easily undermine
   confidence in the reliability of the Internet's mail systems.  So
   silent dropping of messages should be considered only in those cases
   where there is very high confidence that the messages are seriously
   fraudulent or otherwise inappropriate.

   To stretch the principle of delivery if possible even further, it may
   be a rational policy to not deliver mail that has an invalid return
   address, although the history of the network is that users are
   typically better served by delivering any message that can be
   delivered.  Reliably determining that a return address is invalid can
   be a difficult and time-consuming process, especially if the putative
   sending system is not directly accessible or does not fully and
   accurately support VRFY and, even if a "drop messages with invalid
   return addresses" policy is adopted, it SHOULD be applied only when
   there is near-certainty that the return addresses are, in fact,
   invalid.

   Conversely, if a message is rejected because it is found to contain
   hostile content (a decision that is outside the scope of an SMTP
   server as defined in this document), rejection ("bounce") messages
   SHOULD NOT be sent unless the receiving site is confident that those
   messages will be usefully delivered.  The preference and default in
   these cases is to avoid sending non-delivery messages when the
   incoming message is determined to contain hostile content.

Jeff

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#280487 — Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ]

On 27/06/2025 23:46, Greg wrote:
> On 2025-06-27, Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Bounce can and does mean a rejection of the email by the *server*, so
>>> your proposal seems nonsensical or confusing, as the email has
>>> already been delivered to its recipients.
>>
>> I am not proposing anything.  I am *explaining*.
>>
>> This is the terminology that mutt uses.
> 
> It is not the accepted meaning of the term.
> 
> https://github.com/mjg59/jargon/blob/master/bounce
> 
> :bounce: v. 1. [common; perhaps by analogy to a bouncing check] An
> electronic mail message that is undeliverable and returns an error
> notification to the sender is said to bounce. see also {bounce message}.
> 

Mutt seems to have its own set of definitions which mutt users will need to grasp.

Meanwhile, for people (like me) who already know that email is complicated, but would like a bit more detail, here's a page I found which explains MUA, MSA, MTA, MDA and MRA quite clearly (bearing in mind that not everything written is true):
https://oxilor.com/blog/how-does-email-work
and the Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_agent_(infrastructure)

-- 
John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#280490 — Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list

Am Sa, Jun 28, 2025 at 10:11:09 +0900 schrieb John Crawley:
>>It is not the accepted meaning of the term.
>>https://github.com/mjg59/jargon/blob/master/bounce
>Mutt seems to have its own set of definitions which mutt users will need 
>to grasp.

I can assure you that mutt’s meaning of bounce is older than mutt.
Elm used this word and feature long before.

	Stephan

-- 
|    If your life was a horse, you'd have to shoot it.    |

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#280491 — Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, Jun 28, 2025 at 11:52:33AM +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> Am Sa, Jun 28, 2025 at 10:11:09 +0900 schrieb John Crawley:
> > > It is not the accepted meaning of the term.
> > > https://github.com/mjg59/jargon/blob/master/bounce
> > Mutt seems to have its own set of definitions which mutt users will need
> > to grasp.
> 
> I can assure you that mutt’s meaning of bounce is older than mutt.
> Elm used this word and feature long before.

I think I've tried to explain extensively. But I failed.

Originally, bounce meant "MTA doesn't know how to pass on this
message, so sending back to original sender". For reasons (also
explained in this thread), this has come out of fashion.

MUA "bounce" is not exactly the same (the user has a chance to
specify *which* address to send the bounce to, for one), but
technically so close (as much of the headers as possible remains
unchanged), that calling it a bounce does make sense.

So it is clear why Elm, Mutt and other civilised MUAs call it
this way.

But hey. That's my last attempt, since my loop detector is already
at 11 ;-)

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#280494 — Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list

tomas@tuxteam.de (HE12025-06-28):
> MUA "bounce" is not exactly the same (the user has a chance to
> specify *which* address to send the bounce to, for one), but
> technically so close (as much of the headers as possible remains
> unchanged), that calling it a bounce does make sense.

This is not accurate.

MUA bounces are injected as is as an outgoing mail, with all their
headers and all their bodies. Any change comes later in the transmission
and delivery.

MTA bounces, i.e. delivery status notifications, are entirely new mails,
with minimal headers telling you where it comes from and with an
(usually incomprehensible) explanation in the body. They contain the
full header of the original mail and sometimes but not always its body,
either directly in the body or as a MIME attachment.

In termes of structure, MTA bounces are much closer to MUA forwards than
MUA bounces. And MTA forwards are much closer to MUA bounces than MUA
forwards.

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#280471 — Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 12:09 AM John Crawley <john@bunsenlabs.org> wrote:
>
> On 26/06/2025 01:00, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 03:18:05PM -0000, Greg wrote:
> >> On 2025-06-24, Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> This like sounds like good and important advice, but how do you "bounce the
> >>>> original message"?
> >>>
> >>> By using the "bounce" feature of your MUA.  Only good ones have it.
> >>>
> >>>> Does that mean forward the message to the  report-listspam?
> >>>
> >>> No.  Forwarding and bouncing are different operations.
> >>
> >> One problem for the casual user is that there's bouncing and then
> >> there's bouncing. For most us, bouncing means that the mail server
> >> rejects the email.
> >
> > Yep. That's where the name comes from. It sends the mail back, with
> > as much intact info as possible to allow the mail admin to debug the
> > situation. Bouncing from the MUA does technically the same, so the
> > same name is appropriate.
> >
> >> https://www.activecampaign.com/glossary/bounced-email
> >>
> >> For those in the know like you, it means redirecting the email
> >> anonymously to another recipient.
> >>
> >> I'm familiar with the latter as an Alpine user, BTW.
>
> I think "bouncing" is something that should really be done on a server, not by a user email agent, even a "good" one.

I think if you ask the hardcore email folks who hang out on the
[emailcore] or [mailmaint] lists at the IETF, they would say something
like a Mail Transfer Agent (MTA) or Mail Delivery Agent (MDA) are the
ones that deliver Non-Delivery Reports (NDR), and not Mail User Agents
(MUA).

The folks on the IETF list tend to be very precise when discussing all
things email. I've seen them tell folks to go read a RFC so the person
in the discussion can get the terms they are using correct. ("forward"
versus "relay" tends to trigger them because they are not the same
thing in email-speak).

> Even so, "resend" is often available, either built-in or as a plugin, using the "Resent*" fields:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.6
>
> The Debian Wiki has these suggestions for how to deal with spam:
> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ListMaster/ListArchiveSpam#nominate
> and
> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ListMaster/FAQ#The_lists_are_spam-laden.2C_I_want_to_help_you
>
> So it looks as if resending a spam message to report-listspam@lists.debian.org is OK, although "bouncing" the message back to the server is very much not, even if your MUA can do that.

Jeff

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#280472 — Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

So when do you plan to stop replying???


On 6/26/2025 6:58 PM, John Crawley wrote:
> On 26/06/2025 01:00, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 03:18:05PM -0000, Greg wrote:
>>> On 2025-06-24, Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This like sounds like good and important advice, but how do you 
>>>>> "bounce the
>>>>> original message"?
>>>>
>>>> By using the "bounce" feature of your MUA.  Only good ones have it.
>>>>
>>>>> Does that mean forward the message to the  report-listspam?
>>>>
>>>> No.  Forwarding and bouncing are different operations.
>>>
>>> One problem for the casual user is that there's bouncing and then
>>> there's bouncing. For most us, bouncing means that the mail server
>>> rejects the email.
>>
>> Yep. That's where the name comes from. It sends the mail back, with
>> as much intact info as possible to allow the mail admin to debug the
>> situation. Bouncing from the MUA does technically the same, so the
>> same name is appropriate.
>>
>>> https://www.activecampaign.com/glossary/bounced-email
>>>
>>> For those in the know like you, it means redirecting the email
>>> anonymously to another recipient.
>>>
>>> I'm familiar with the latter as an Alpine user, BTW.
>
> I think "bouncing" is something that should really be done on a 
> server, not by a user email agent, even a "good" one.
>
> Even so, "resend" is often available, either built-in or as a plugin, 
> using the "Resent*" fields:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.6
>
> The Debian Wiki has these suggestions for how to deal with spam:
> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ListMaster/ListArchiveSpam#nominate
> and
> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ListMaster/FAQ#The_lists_are_spam-laden.2C_I_want_to_help_you 
>
>
> So it looks as if resending a spam message to 
> report-listspam@lists.debian.org is OK, although "bouncing" the 
> message back to the server is very much not, even if your MUA can do 
> that.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#280473 — Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 10:58:54AM +0900, John Crawley wrote:

[...]

> I think "bouncing" is something that should really be done on a server, not by a user email agent, even a "good" one.

Why do you think so?

At least I gave a reason why bouncing from the MUA makes
sense, and another for why it is almost never done from
an MTA (probably what you call "server").

> Even so, "resend" is often available, either built-in or as a plugin, using the "Resent*" fields:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.6
> 
> The Debian Wiki has these suggestions for how to deal with spam:
> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ListMaster/ListArchiveSpam#nominate
> and
> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ListMaster/FAQ#The_lists_are_spam-laden.2C_I_want_to_help_you
> 
> So it looks as if resending a spam message to report-listspam@lists.debian.org is OK, although "bouncing" the message back to the server is very much not, even if your MUA can do that.

You don't "bounce back to the server" (how could you do that?
The server has no mail address). You send the bounce to
<report-listspam@lists.debian.org>, as I stated elsewhere.

That said, the difference between "bounce" and "resend" is
probably minimal. I guess the spam filter training software
will deal with both fine.

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#280474 — Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ]

On 27/06/2025 16:13, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 10:58:54AM +0900, John Crawley wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> I think "bouncing" is something that should really be done on a server, not by a user email agent, even a "good" one.
> 
> Why do you think so?
> 
> At least I gave a reason why bouncing from the MUA makes
> sense, and another for why it is almost never done from
> an MTA (probably what you call "server").
> 
>> Even so, "resend" is often available, either built-in or as a plugin, using the "Resent*" fields:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.6
>>
>> The Debian Wiki has these suggestions for how to deal with spam:
>> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ListMaster/ListArchiveSpam#nominate
>> and
>> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ListMaster/FAQ#The_lists_are_spam-laden.2C_I_want_to_help_you
>>
>> So it looks as if resending a spam message to report-listspam@lists.debian.org is OK, although "bouncing" the message back to the server is very much not, even if your MUA can do that.
> 
> You don't "bounce back to the server" (how could you do that?
> The server has no mail address). You send the bounce to
> <report-listspam@lists.debian.org>, as I stated elsewhere.
> 
> That said, the difference between "bounce" and "resend" is
> probably minimal. I guess the spam filter training software
> will deal with both fine.

I may be wrong here but my understanding of "bounce" is that the software responsible for delivering a message (what I referred to as the "server") decides not to deliver it, and sends it back to the original address. So not something that an MUA can (or should be able to) do.

Wouldn't an attempt to "bounce" or possibly "resend" a message from an MUA need to be first accepted by the SMTP "server"? (What is the correct name for that?)

Is a message with Resent-* fields treated as being from the user or from the original sender?

BTW why does your message here have my email address as To:, and CC: to the list, even though I had no Reply-to: header in the message you are replying to?

-- 
John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#280475 — Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 05:04:14PM +0900, John Crawley wrote:

[...]

> I may be wrong here but my understanding of "bounce" is that the software responsible for delivering a message (what I referred to as the "server") decides not to deliver it, and sends it back to the original address. So not something that an MUA can (or should be able to) do.

Ah, now we are talking. Yes, sending back to the original
address was the original use of "bounce". These days you
(almost) *never* do that, because that address can be forged
and has been used extensively by spammers (since sometime
in the 1990ies!) to generate backscatter.

> Wouldn't an attempt to "bounce" or possibly "resend" a message from an MUA need to be first accepted by the SMTP "server"? (What is the correct name for that?)

Yes, any mail sent from your MUA has to be accepted by the
next hop (typically a mail transfer agent, aka MTA). Some
have policies in place (e.g. the "From:" header is restricted).

This might thwart a bounce.

> Is a message with Resent-* fields treated as being from the user or from the original sender?

I don't know. It's most probably in the RFC.

> BTW why does your message here have my email address as To:, and CC: to the list, even though I had no Reply-to: header in the message you are replying to?

Because I replied using "group reply", and your message had
"From" from you (some lists replace that in the header, the
Debian ones don't).

This is a discussion topic which comes up regularly (some folks
*hate* getting list replies addressed at them). But there is no
nice solution for all, alas.

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#280486 — Re: Please, don't reply to spam -- much less on list [was: ግěcůžላኣዝዩ]

On 27/06/2025 17:44, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 05:04:14PM +0900, John Crawley wrote:
>> BTW why does your message here have my email address as To:, and CC: to the list, even though I had no Reply-to: header in the message you are replying to?
> 
> Because I replied using "group reply", and your message had
> "From" from you (some lists replace that in the header, the
> Debian ones don't).
> 
> This is a discussion topic which comes up regularly (some folks
> *hate* getting list replies addressed at them). But there is no
> nice solution for all, alas.

Ah, OK thanks.
I'm getting duplicate messages from some list users, but not all. I guess that means that individual users' MUAs are coming into it.

Anyway, I'll just delete the superfluous messages.

-- 
John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#280495 — Using MUAs to bounce mail (was: Please, don't reply to spam ...)

On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 10:58:54AM +0900, John Crawley wrote:
> I think "bouncing" is something that should really be done on a 
> server, not by a user email agent, even a "good" one.

Nothing related to spam or server-side bouncing, or maybe even to the
intended purpose of bouncing, but I absolutely love bouncing mails
in mutt instead of forwarding. I need some mail on the address 
I use on my mobile: Just bounce it. I only do this to my own
mail addresses.

Am I alone in this use case of bounces? Or is this considered an
abuse?

/ralph

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#280496 — Re: Using MUAs to bounce mail (was: Please, don't reply to spam ...)

Hi,

On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 11:55:56AM +0200, Ralph Aichinger wrote:
> I absolutely love bouncing mails in mutt instead of forwarding. I need
> some mail on the address I use on my mobile: Just bounce it. I only do
> this to my own mail addresses.
> 
> Am I alone in this use case of bounces? Or is this considered an
> abuse?

I don't see how sending email to yourself can be considered abusive.

It's rare I will use this feature any more because modern email sender
authentication measures are more likely to make the mail fail to arrive.
For example, if you receive an email that looks like this:

From: sender@example.com
To: you@example.edu

and you bounce that to you@gmail.com, it will arrive at gmail from your
current IP address and with From: address still listed as
sender@example.com. Since your current network probably isn't authorised
to send email for example.com, if example.com uses SPF this will be an
SPF failure. It will also likely be a DKIM failure due to some added and
changed headers. If both fail then this will additionally be a DMARC
failure.

In the post-SPF and DKIM world, the ways to redirect / forward emails
have changed.

I will sometimes use Mutt's bounce feature to re-send email that did not
get delivered because I did something wrong. For example, if I email a
mailing list that only allows subscribers to post to it but I use the
wrong address, my mail is either held for moderation or immediately
rejected. I then go into the sent folder, 'e'dit the item to have the
correct From: address and then 'b'ounce it to the same place it was
originally sent to. This won't be a problem because it will be using an
address I am permitted to use from the place I am sending it from. I
could instead do a forward but then I'd have to edit away the extra junk
that forwarding adds.

The number of people using email in any serious manner is dwindling and
most users do not know anything about headers or the sender
authentication mechanisms. I personally would not try to talk anyone
through trying to bounce, forward or otherwise report spam in any way at
all unless their email provider has a "report spam" button. I think
there are too many fiddly concepts involved with a diminishing return on
the investment of learning them.

The Debian list archives do have a "this is spam" button on each
message, which I think was mentioned earlier in the thread. That's worth
using just to hopefully get the message removed from the archives.

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#280497 — Re: Using MUAs to bounce mail (was: Please, don't reply to spam ...)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 10:47:43AM +0000, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 11:55:56AM +0200, Ralph Aichinger wrote:
> > I absolutely love bouncing mails in mutt instead of forwarding. I need
> > some mail on the address I use on my mobile: Just bounce it. I only do
> > this to my own mail addresses.
> > 
> > Am I alone in this use case of bounces? Or is this considered an
> > abuse?
> 
> I don't see how sending email to yourself can be considered abusive.
> 
> It's rare I will use this feature any more because modern email sender
> authentication measures are more likely to make the mail fail to arrive.

If your server does those things. Mine doesn't: I trust the users
on it.

[...]

> From: sender@example.com
> To: you@example.edu
> 
> and you bounce that to you@gmail.com, it will arrive at gmail from your
> current IP address and with From: address still listed as
> sender@example.com. Since your current network probably isn't authorised
> to send email for example.com, if example.com uses SPF this will be an
> SPF failure. It will also likely be a DKIM failure due to some added and
> changed headers. If both fail then this will additionally be a DMARC
> failure.

SPF and its ilk are quite another kettle of fish. Since it is the
receiver who decides to act on those policies (or not), this isn't
relevant to the case which started this thread, the spam reporting
interface for the Debian mailing lists, <report-listspam@lists.debian.org>.
I'd expect it to accept such bounces despite SPF failures.

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#280498 — Re: Using MUAs to bounce mail (was: Please, don't reply to spam ...)

Ralph Aichinger (HE12025-06-29):
> Nothing related to spam or server-side bouncing, or maybe even to the
> intended purpose of bouncing, but I absolutely love bouncing mails
> in mutt instead of forwarding. I need some mail on the address 
> I use on my mobile: Just bounce it. I only do this to my own
> mail addresses.
> 
> Am I alone in this use case of bounces? Or is this considered an
> abuse?

I do that frequently too. For example when somebody wrote to me directly
instead of to the service.

Abuse is vague, but if you do not operate your own server, then this
practice might trigger one of the ineffective anti-spam constraints that
the oligopolistic operators are forcing on every body for other reasons
than fighting spam.

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#280438

This will be reported as spam.


On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 09:45:43 +0200, 🦓 wrote:
> Schick einfach das Geld rüber und verpiss Dich aus geldbefreiten
> Kommunistinnenkommunen!
>
> Op di 24 jun 2025 om 10:04 schreef <mullerrogatien@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Hallo,
>> Ich Wende mich an alle Einzelpersonen und Unternehmen, die 
>> Finanzmittel für Ihre Projekte benötigen. Ich biete Darlehen 
>> an, die je nach Betrag angepasst sind souhaité.Si Sie sind 
>> tatsächlich in not, zögern Sie nicht, mich zu Kontaktieren, um 
>> weitere Informationen zu erhalten.
>>
>> Bonjour,
>> Je me tourne vers tous les particuliers et toutes les 
>> entreprises dans le besoin financier pour leurs fait part que 
>> j'octroie des financements selon le montant souhaité. Si vous 
>> êtes vraiment dans le besoin, veuillez m'écrire pour avoir plus 
>> d'informations.
>
>

-- 
Sent with Dekko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#280441

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

yes sand
we were spammed with beautiful runes.

whom should i have reported this to?
spam@gmail.com appears unreceptive to reports and i do not feel like
continuing with spammers@gmail.com abuse@gmail.com postmaster@gmail.com
police@gmail.com complaints@gmail.com — what an intransparent village this
still is!

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025, 12:06 Sand <sand@cybert.me> wrote:

> This will be reported as spam.
>
>
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 09:45:43 +0200, 🦓 wrote:
> > Schick einfach das Geld rüber und verpiss Dich aus geldbefreiten
> > Kommunistinnenkommunen!
> >
> > Op di 24 jun 2025 om 10:04 schreef <mullerrogatien@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> Hallo,
> >> Ich Wende mich an alle Einzelpersonen und Unternehmen, die
> >> Finanzmittel für Ihre Projekte benötigen. Ich biete Darlehen
> >> an, die je nach Betrag angepasst sind souhaité.Si Sie sind
> >> tatsächlich in not, zögern Sie nicht, mich zu Kontaktieren, um
> >> weitere Informationen zu erhalten.
> >>
> >> Bonjour,
> >> Je me tourne vers tous les particuliers et toutes les
> >> entreprises dans le besoin financier pour leurs fait part que
> >> j'octroie des financements selon le montant souhaité. Si vous
> >> êtes vraiment dans le besoin, veuillez m'écrire pour avoir plus
> >> d'informations.
> >
> >
>
> --
> Sent with Dekko
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#280442 — Spam on this list, top-posting and things.

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 01:24:59PM +0200, Frank Weißer wrote:
> Wherever you think it's neccessary;
> but, first of all: You were informed by tomas, not to quote the original
> posting! Why do you repeat doing so?

I think because people don't even realise what their MUAs do. If
you have been top-posting all your life, you probably don't even
see it.

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web