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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #161735 > unrolled thread

Re: no response from listmaster

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

Contents

  Re: no response from listmaster Steve Kleene <skdeb@syrano.acb.uc.edu> - 2015-12-14 03:50 +0100
    Re: no response from listmaster Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 04:50 +0100
    Re: no response from listmaster Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> - 2015-12-14 05:00 +0100
      Re: no response from listmaster <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-12-14 10:40 +0100
        Re: no response from listmaster Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> - 2015-12-14 15:10 +0100
          Re: no response from listmaster tomas@tuxteam.de - 2015-12-14 15:30 +0100
            Re: no response from listmaster Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 16:10 +0100
              Re: no response from listmaster Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 16:30 +0100
              Re: no response from listmaster <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-12-15 09:00 +0100
                Re: no response from listmaster Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 12:10 +0100
                  Re: no response from listmaster <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-12-15 12:30 +0100
                    Re: no response from listmaster Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 12:40 +0100
                    Re: no response from listmaster Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 12:40 +0100
                      Re: no response from listmaster German <gentgerman@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 12:50 +0100
                Re: no response from listmaster John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-12-15 15:10 +0100
      Re: no response from listmaster Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2015-12-14 15:30 +0100
        Re: no response from listmaster Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> - 2015-12-14 15:50 +0100
          Re: no response from listmaster <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-12-15 09:00 +0100
            Re: no response from listmaster Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 12:10 +0100
              Re: no response from listmaster Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> - 2015-12-15 17:50 +0100
                Re: no response from listmaster Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-12-15 20:40 +0100
                  Re: no response from listmaster Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 00:20 +0100
                    Re: no response from listmaster Lee Fuller <me@leefuller.io> - 2015-12-23 20:10 +0100
                      Re: no response from listmaster Steve Kleene <skdeb@syrano.acb.uc.edu> - 2015-12-23 21:50 +0100
                        Re: no response from listmaster Lee <me@leefuller.io> - 2015-12-23 22:10 +0100
                        Re: no response from listmaster Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> - 2015-12-24 02:30 +0100
                  Re: no response from listmaster Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 00:20 +0100
          Re: no response from listmaster Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2015-12-15 10:20 +0100
    Re: no response from listmaster <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-12-14 11:10 +0100
      Re: no response from listmaster Lee Fuller <leefuller23@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 15:10 +0100
        Re: no response from listmaster Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2015-12-14 15:40 +0100
          Re: no response from listmaster Lee Fuller <leefuller23@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 17:50 +0100
    Re: no response from listmaster [SOLVED] Steve Kleene <skdeb@syrano.acb.uc.edu> - 2015-12-14 16:30 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#161787

On Tue 15 Dec 2015 at 11:49:49 -0500, Bob Bernstein wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> 
> >>Now, what do you prefer: being plonked or being ordered to do things?
> >
> >Being plonked.  Any day.  Feel free to plonk me any time. But issuing
> >orders is likely to get an adverse reaction.
> >
> >Agreed, Bob?
> 
> Absolutely! Mais certainement! In short, nobody likes being *told* what to
> do.

I'm going to quote the whole of the mail you sent which started this
subthread:

 > Surely your neuroscience teaching, and other professional duties, at UC and
 > elsewhere keep you sufficiently busy so that you shouldn't really have to
 > pester Debian volunteers trying to keep the massive Debian mailing lists
 > system up and running. You have what appears to be a perfectly serviceable
 > uc.edu personal email account. I understand how attached you must be to
 > syrano, your personal linux server, but please try to get and keep some
 > perspective on all this. You are having difficulties of a strictly personal
 > nature that in now way merit the time of Debian listadmins.

The first sentence is gratuitous ad hominem. The tone and phrasing make
it evident that you think the OP has no justification for posting here.
Why not just tell him to piss off because he is wasting our time?

Then a lecture is launched. It would be hard to say where perspective
has lost here; many difficulties recounted on this list are "personal"
to the user.

All that tomási reasonably said was:

 > Woah. Calm down a bit.

That is polite and succinct enough to clue someone in to responding as
though they are not seated on a high horse.

> And, yes, there is something sophomoric about plonking someone but telling
> them about it first. In the Usenet heydays of killfiles, that was not as a
> rule how it was done.

The boot continues to be put in. Just bought them - or are they new?

Meanwhile, the OP has reached a solution to his problem. Pestering us
appears to have its benefits. Just think, your response might have edged
him towards it. :)

[Sorry - the first two words of the last sentence form an imperative].

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

#161792

On Tuesday 15 December 2015 19:29:50 Brian wrote:
> Pestering us
> appears to have its benefits. Just think, your response might have edged
> him towards it. :)

To be fair, Brian, it wasn't pestering us that was complained about, it was 
pestering the listmasters.  "Pestering" us was the right thing to do, and as 
you say helped the OP solve his problem.

Lisi

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

#162057

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

Sorry to drag up this old relic, Steve - did your investigation yield
anything useful?

Mail is a complicated subject so I'm keen to hear about the conclusion of
issues like this.

On 15 December 2015 at 23:14, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday 15 December 2015 19:29:50 Brian wrote:
> > Pestering us
> > appears to have its benefits. Just think, your response might have edged
> > him towards it. :)
>
> To be fair, Brian, it wasn't pestering us that was complained about, it was
> pestering the listmasters.  "Pestering" us was the right thing to do, and
> as
> you say helped the OP solve his problem.
>
> Lisi
>
>

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

#162061

On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 18:55:54 +0000, Lee Fuller <me@leefuller.io> wrote:

> Sorry to drag up this old relic, Steve - did your investigation yield
> anything useful?
>
> Mail is a complicated subject so I'm keen to hear about the conclusion of
> issues like this.
>
> On 15 December 2015 at 23:14, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday 15 December 2015 19:29:50 Brian wrote:
> > > Pestering us
> > > appears to have its benefits. Just think, your response might have edged
> > > him towards it. :)
> >
> > To be fair, Brian, it wasn't pestering us that was complained about, it was
> > pestering the listmasters.  "Pestering" us was the right thing to do, and
> > as
> > you say helped the OP solve his problem.
> >
> > Lisi

Yes, the problem has been solved.  I posted as follows and added "[SOLVED]"
to the Subject in the header:

On Mon Dec 14 10:22:25 2015, I wrote:

> I have now been able to resubscribe.  What I did was to stop routing my mail
> through my employer's main router.  I believe that was the source of the
> bounces from improper processing of validation tags.  Dodging that router let
> me succeed in replying to confirm my subscription.
>
> I began relaying through this router ten years ago because a different
> recipient didn't like my originating IP.  If that's now busted again, I'll
> work through it.
>
> Thank you very much to all of you who posted or wrote with helpful and useful
> suggestions.

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

#162062

Yay. Cheers for the info. Sorry I missed the original resolution.

On 23/12/15 20:45, Steve Kleene wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 18:55:54 +0000, Lee Fuller <me@leefuller.io> wrote:
>
>> Sorry to drag up this old relic, Steve - did your investigation yield
>> anything useful?
>>
>> Mail is a complicated subject so I'm keen to hear about the conclusion of
>> issues like this.
>>
>> On 15 December 2015 at 23:14, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday 15 December 2015 19:29:50 Brian wrote:
>>>> Pestering us
>>>> appears to have its benefits. Just think, your response might have edged
>>>> him towards it. :)
>>> To be fair, Brian, it wasn't pestering us that was complained about, it was
>>> pestering the listmasters.  "Pestering" us was the right thing to do, and
>>> as
>>> you say helped the OP solve his problem.
>>>
>>> Lisi
> Yes, the problem has been solved.  I posted as follows and added "[SOLVED]"
> to the Subject in the header:
>
> On Mon Dec 14 10:22:25 2015, I wrote:
>
>> I have now been able to resubscribe.  What I did was to stop routing my mail
>> through my employer's main router.  I believe that was the source of the
>> bounces from improper processing of validation tags.  Dodging that router let
>> me succeed in replying to confirm my subscription.
>>
>> I began relaying through this router ten years ago because a different
>> recipient didn't like my originating IP.  If that's now busted again, I'll
>> work through it.
>>
>> Thank you very much to all of you who posted or wrote with helpful and useful
>> suggestions.

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

#162072

On Wed, 23 Dec 2015, Steve Kleene wrote:

>> Thank you very much to all of you who posted or wrote with 
>> helpful and useful suggestions.

I think a little acknowledgement of the contribution of those of 
us who can no longer be seduced or cajoled into being "helpful 
and useful" would be in order.

They too serve who just like to stand around and kibbitz.

No good deed goes unpunished.

-- 
Bob Bernstein

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

#161794

On Tuesday 15 December 2015 19:29:50 Brian wrote:
> Just think, your response might have edged
> him towards it. :)
>
> [Sorry - the first two words of the last sentence form an imperative].

:-))

Lisi

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

#161774

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 09:49:13AM -0500, Bob Bernstein wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015, Dan Ritter wrote:
> 
> >Plonk*.
> 
> Sigh. Another satisfied customer.
> 
> >* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(Usenet)
> 
> FWIW, I didn't need the wikipedia reference. I've been plonked in classier
> joints than this!

I've never understood the blocker's desire to publish their block.
It's certainly of no interest to anyone else receiving the list.

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

#161744

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 02:46:43AM +0000, Steve Kleene wrote:

[...]

> I am running mailto/sendmail from the command line, configured locally by
> /etc/sendmail/sendmail.cf.  This file includes:
> 
>   DSsmtp.uc.edu
> 
> This sets my employer's server smtp.uc.edu as SMART_HOST.  I did not route
> through that server until 2006.  At that point an organization across the
> street began refusing emails because my IP was seen as dynamic.  I had to
> route through smtp.uc.edu to get around that.  I haven't tried lately to go
> back to the pre-2006 system.  I do have one machine with a fixed IP.  On my
> desk machine I masquerade to the fixed IP, but apparently e-mails from the
> desk machine were detected as dynamic IP before the header was even checked.

That sounds like a lot of guesswork. Note that the spam [1] protection
strategies are extremely varied these days, ranging from "I only accept
mail from a couple of well-known sites" to DKIM [1] or SPF [2] and a
whole zoo of other measures which don't really work (half of the spam
I get has a DKIM, which suggests that some filters are spoofed by it).

Perhaps the DKIM record of your uni doesn't list your IP address as one
allowed to send mail from this domain?

Other criteria are the domain's reputation and RBLs. The first mail I
sent to a friend on outlook.com (I maintain my own mail server) never
arrived (no bounce, no nothing: it just disappeared). Once she sent
me a mail, "the channel was open".

Spam filtering is hard.

Add to this that the "biggies" don't dislike the situation that people
have to turn to them to be able to reliably send mail, and then you
see why they take half-hearted measures which generate "some" collateral
damages. It's disgusting: mail, as a true peer-to-peer communication
medium is dying thanks to spam, and thanks to the likes of Microsoft,
Yahoo, Facebook, Google, Twitter et al.

As if they were allies.

So if you want still to send mail from your own IP, you'll have to
know a bit about spam.

Another thing: don't be impatient with the Debian listmasters. They're
doing volunteer work. They deserve our appreciation. And if things
don't work as they should, perhaps offering our hand is better than
venting our ire.

Cheers

[1] Yes, counter to your suggestion in another mail I do mention the word
    "spam", because you can't explain the current situation without that.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys_Identified_Mail
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Policy_Framework
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL

- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlZuivsACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZq7ACeJuNNyiKaPEg+R/EA974On2+k
8nYAn3+Q0eQOalTD5wV0bw0REqQ6pOFx
=GRxP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#161754

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

​Hey there,

I checked your email address using basic telnet and a measurement tool.

I identified the likely physicality of your mailbox to be Cincinnati, and
the server connecting to you in these measurements is in Texas.

I ran the test in a handful of arrangements but I repeated the general
routine enough times intentionally to discount causes of likely performance
fluctuation.

In both tests it is clear that an *SMTP transaction takes as long as
10 seconds *to conclude, and that is using plaintext SMTP without actually
having transferred anything more than a formal greeting of machines.

I doubt a list server of this size is configured to wait anywhere near 10
seconds before considering an address unreachable.

That's probably the cause of your issues as you describe them.


​
-
- Lee Fuller

On 14 Dec 2015 9:25 a.m., <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 02:46:43AM +0000, Steve Kleene wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I am running mailto/sendmail from the command line, configured locally by
> > /etc/sendmail/sendmail.cf.  This file includes:
> >
> >   DSsmtp.uc.edu
> >
> > This sets my employer's server smtp.uc.edu as SMART_HOST.  I did not
> route
> > through that server until 2006.  At that point an organization across the
> > street began refusing emails because my IP was seen as dynamic.  I had to
> > route through smtp.uc.edu to get around that.  I haven't tried lately
> to go
> > back to the pre-2006 system.  I do have one machine with a fixed IP.  On
> my
> > desk machine I masquerade to the fixed IP, but apparently e-mails from
> the
> > desk machine were detected as dynamic IP before the header was even
> checked.
>
> That sounds like a lot of guesswork. Note that the spam [1] protection
> strategies are extremely varied these days, ranging from "I only accept
> mail from a couple of well-known sites" to DKIM [1] or SPF [2] and a
> whole zoo of other measures which don't really work (half of the spam
> I get has a DKIM, which suggests that some filters are spoofed by it).
>
> Perhaps the DKIM record of your uni doesn't list your IP address as one
> allowed to send mail from this domain?
>
> Other criteria are the domain's reputation and RBLs. The first mail I
> sent to a friend on outlook.com (I maintain my own mail server) never
> arrived (no bounce, no nothing: it just disappeared). Once she sent
> me a mail, "the channel was open".
>
> Spam filtering is hard.
>
> Add to this that the "biggies" don't dislike the situation that people
> have to turn to them to be able to reliably send mail, and then you
> see why they take half-hearted measures which generate "some" collateral
> damages. It's disgusting: mail, as a true peer-to-peer communication
> medium is dying thanks to spam, and thanks to the likes of Microsoft,
> Yahoo, Facebook, Google, Twitter et al.
>
> As if they were allies.
>
> So if you want still to send mail from your own IP, you'll have to
> know a bit about spam.
>
> Another thing: don't be impatient with the Debian listmasters. They're
> doing volunteer work. They deserve our appreciation. And if things
> don't work as they should, perhaps offering our hand is better than
> venting our ire.
>
> Cheers
>
> [1] Yes, counter to your suggestion in another mail I do mention the word
>     "spam", because you can't explain the current situation without that.
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys_Identified_Mail
> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Policy_Framework
> [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL
>
> - -- tomás
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlZuivsACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZq7ACeJuNNyiKaPEg+R/EA974On2+k
> 8nYAn3+Q0eQOalTD5wV0bw0REqQ6pOFx
> =GRxP
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

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

#161759

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

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 01:41:46PM +0000, Lee Fuller wrote:
>​Hey there,
>
>I checked your email address using basic telnet and a measurement tool.
>
>I identified the likely physicality of your mailbox to be Cincinnati, and the
>server connecting to you in these measurements is in Texas.
>
>I ran the test in a handful of arrangements but I repeated the general routine
>enough times intentionally to discount causes of likely performance
>fluctuation.
>
>In both tests it is clear that an SMTP transaction takes as long as 10 seconds 
>to conclude, and that is using plaintext SMTP without actually having
>transferred anything more than a formal greeting of machines.
>
>I doubt a list server of this size is configured to wait anywhere near 10
>seconds before considering an address unreachable.

RFC 5321, section 4.5.3.2 lists the various timesouts that an SMTP 
client SHOULD employ (noting that they MUST be per-command, not on the 
whole transaction). They include:
 * Time to Initial 220 message: 5 minutes
 * Response to MAIL or RCPT command: 5 minutes
 * Waiting for "354 Start Input" after issueing "DATA": 3 minutes
 * Waiting for next command from server: 5 minutes

So, any client that disconnects after waiting only 10 seconds is, while 
not explicitly spammy, at least poorly behaved.

>
>That's probably the cause of your issues as you describe them.
>
>
>​
>-
>- Lee Fuller
>

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

#161770

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

For reference, the default timeout in the current release of mailman is 30
seconds.

https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DSA

I believe DSA are responsible for the list server.

-
- Lee Fuller
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 01:41:46PM +0000, Lee Fuller wrote:

> ​Hey there,
>
> I checked your email address using basic telnet and a measurement tool.
>
> I identified the likely physicality of your mailbox to be Cincinnati, and
> the
> server connecting to you in these measurements is in Texas.
>
> I ran the test in a handful of arrangements but I repeated the general
> routine
> enough times intentionally to discount causes of likely performance
> fluctuation.
>
> In both tests it is clear that an SMTP transaction takes as long as
> 10 seconds to conclude, and that is using plaintext SMTP without actually
> having
> transferred anything more than a formal greeting of machines.
>
> I doubt a list server of this size is configured to wait anywhere near 10
> seconds before considering an address unreachable.
>

RFC 5321, section 4.5.3.2 lists the various timesouts that an SMTP client
SHOULD employ (noting that they MUST be per-command, not on the whole
transaction). They include:
* Time to Initial 220 message: 5 minutes
* Response to MAIL or RCPT command: 5 minutes
* Waiting for "354 Start Input" after issueing "DATA": 3 minutes
* Waiting for next command from server: 5 minutes

So, any client that disconnects after waiting only 10 seconds is, while not
explicitly spammy, at least poorly behaved.


> That's probably the cause of your issues as you describe them.
>
>
> ​
> -
> - Lee Fuller
>
>

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

#161763 — Re: no response from listmaster [SOLVED]

On 2015-12-13 17:18:32 GMT, I wrote:

> My address (skdeb@syrano.acb.uc.edu) has been unsubscribed from the
> debian-user mailing list.  I understand why.  I took the address down for a
> few days for reasons that are now irrelevant (but can be related if anyone
> cares).  Because mails from lists.debian.org were bouncing, they unsubscribed
> me.  A note from listmaster@lists.debian.org on Dec 8 notified me of this and
> said, "You are welcome to contact us".  I wrote to that address twice (Dec 8
> and 9).  The mails were not returned to me; I have received no response; and
> I'm still unsubscribed.

I have now been able to resubscribe.  What I did was to stop routing my mail
through my employer's main router.  I believe that was the source of the
bounces from improper processing of validation tags.  Dodging that router let
me succeed in replying to confirm my subscription.

I began relaying through this router ten years ago because a different
recipient didn't like my originating IP.  If that's now busted again, I'll
work through it.

Thank you very much to all of you who posted or wrote with helpful and useful
suggestions.

On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:25:15 +0100, <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:

> Another thing: don't be impatient with the Debian listmasters. They're
> doing volunteer work. They deserve our appreciation. And if things
> don't work as they should, perhaps offering our hand is better than
> venting our ire.

I agree with all of this.  I have tried hard to just state the facts I know
and not suggest any sort of misbehavior.  I have (sporadically) benefitted
from this group many times over the past nine years, and it's a major reason
I've stuck with Debian.  I have also (less often) contributed a solution or
two when I was able.

Thanks again.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web