Fwd: favor - please post test to E2E list

The problem is that you have to be subscribed to the end2end-interest list
*exactly as your mail agent/MTA sends your mail.   Be aware that
the  end2end list is configured to silently discard mail from addresses
which are not members of the list.    So for example if you are subscribed
as [email protected], but your mail agent send your messages from
[email protected], you will see messages from the list, but your posts
will be silently discarded.

*For some definition of exactly.   I did not try:
[email protected] vs [email protected]
[email protected] vs [email protected]

If you think you are having problems, look at the "receivedfrom" lines in
messages from others, and I bet your inbound subscription address doesn't
match your own outbound address.

I am pretty sure that groups.{yahoo, hotmail, google, ...}.com all get this
right.

Thanks,
--MM--
The best way to predict the future is to create it.  - Alan Kay

Privacy matters!  We know from recent events that people are using our
services to speak in defiance of unjust governments.   We treat privacy and
security as matters of life and death, because for some users, they are.


Forwarded conversation
Subject: favor - please post test to E2E list
------------------------

From: *Joe Touch* <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 6:45 PM
To: James Sterbenz <[email protected]>, Matt Mathis <[email protected]>,
Mark Allman <[email protected]>


Hi, all,

I have a report of problems posting to the list.

Can each of you post a test with the subject "testing - as requested by
list admin"?

This will let me know if the issue is more pervasive or limited in scope.

Thanks,

Joe


----------
From: *Matt Mathis* <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 6:30 PM
To: Joe Touch <[email protected]>
Cc: James Sterbenz <[email protected]>, Mark Allman <[email protected]>


I sent 2 messages, one each from [email protected] (1/2) and
[email protected] (2/2).

I was also suspicious of delivery problems, however since Google normally
hides our own messages I was not sure.

In absence of any facts..... The common failure is for the list not to
properly strip/update all DKIM (whatever) headers from the originator, and
then email services which are enforcing signatures discard the messages as
being forged.   The case I commonly run into is from google to google
through a broken list.....

I have not yet received my own message 1/2 to either account.   Have any of
you received it?

Thanks,
--MM--
The best way to predict the future is to create it.  - Alan Kay

Privacy matters!  We know from recent events that people are using our
services to speak in defiance of unjust governments.   We treat privacy and
security as matters of life and death, because for some users, they are.

----------
From: *Matt Mathis* <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 8:15 PM
To: Joe Touch <[email protected]>
Cc: James Sterbenz <[email protected]>, Mark Allman <[email protected]>


Message 1 came, after a 40 minute delay.  This probably means that it got
greylisted.

Let me know if you want to dissect the headers.



Thanks,
--MM--
The best way to predict the future is to create it.  - Alan Kay

Privacy matters!  We know from recent events that people are using our
services to speak in defiance of unjust governments.   We treat privacy and
security as matters of life and death, because for some users, they are.



----------
From: *Joe Touch* <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 7:36 AM
To: Matt Mathis <[email protected]>
Cc: James Sterbenz <[email protected]>, Mark Allman <[email protected]>


Thanks - the delay is not unusual (our servers are configured so that both
spam filters and mailman run only periodically rather than on-demand).

Joe


> ----------
From: *Joe Touch* <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 7:38 AM
To: Matt Mathis <[email protected]>
Cc: James Sterbenz <[email protected]>, Mark Allman <[email protected]>




On 9/7/2013 6:30 PM, Matt Mathis wrote:

> I sent 2 messages, one each from [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]> (1/2) and [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]> (2/2).
>

Thanks - the first got through, but not the second. That's not surprising,
because only the first is subscribed to the list.

Joe

----------
From: *Matt Mathis* <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:44 AM
To: Joe Touch <[email protected]>
Cc: James Sterbenz <[email protected]>, Mark Allman <[email protected]>


And that would be your problem: no bounce messages.   In this case the name
was canonicalized slightly differently - [email protected] is subscribed
and receiving messages.  Google considers the addresses to be equivalent (I
know, I know...), but the list did not tell me that my posting got rejected.

Note that this sort of problem is impossible for the user to diagnose
themselves because without bounce messages it has no identifying symptom.
 Further it is compounded by modern mail agents that try real hard to hide
the 822 addresses.

I suggest turning on bounce messages.

Thanks,
--MM--
The best way to predict the future is to create it.  - Alan Kay

Privacy matters!  We know from recent events that people are using our
services to speak in defiance of unjust governments.   We treat privacy and
security as matters of life and death, because for some users, they are.



----------
From: *Joe Touch* <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:57 AM
To: Matt Mathis <[email protected]>
Cc: James Sterbenz <[email protected]>, Mark Allman <[email protected]>




On 9/9/2013 8:44 AM, Matt Mathis wrote:

> And that would be your problem: no bounce messages.   In this case the
> name was canonicalized slightly differently - [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]> is subscribed and receiving messages.
>
>   Google considers the addresses to be equivalent (I know, I know...),
> but the list did not tell me that my posting got rejected.
>
> Note that this sort of problem is impossible for the user to diagnose
> themselves because without bounce messages it has no identifying
> symptom.  Further it is compounded by modern mail agents that try real
> hard to hide the 822 addresses.
>
> I suggest turning on bounce messages.
>

I don't see how to do that in Mailman without responding to spam, which we
don't have the resources to handle (and don't want to do).

Joe

>
>
----------
From: *Matt Mathis* <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:03 AM
To: Joe Touch <[email protected]>
Cc: James Sterbenz <[email protected]>, Mark Allman <[email protected]>


I thought the proper action was to return a 500 level error to the
originating MTA.   Perhaps the list needs to move to newer platform?

 Thanks,
--MM--
The best way to predict the future is to create it.  - Alan Kay

Privacy matters!  We know from recent events that people are using our
services to speak in defiance of unjust governments.   We treat privacy and
security as matters of life and death, because for some users, they are.



----------
From: *Joe Touch* <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 11:00 AM
To: Matt Mathis <[email protected]>
Cc: James Sterbenz <[email protected]>, Mark Allman <[email protected]>




On 9/9/2013 10:03 AM, Matt Mathis wrote:

> I thought the proper action was to return a 500 level error to the
> originating MTA.   Perhaps the list needs to move to newer platform?
>

That would happen at the SMTP level; there's no way to generate that
message from within SMTP on behalf of an exploder that doesn't process mail
until after SMTP has already accepted it.

Joe


>
>
----------
From: *Matt Mathis* <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 11:16 AM
To: Joe Touch <[email protected]>
Cc: James Sterbenz <[email protected]>, Mark Allman <[email protected]>


Yes, I know.  Like I said, perhaps the list needs to move to a more up to
date platform.    I would bet that all of the big list services get this
right.

Thanks,
--MM--
The best way to predict the future is to create it.  - Alan Kay

Privacy matters!  We know from recent events that people are using our
services to speak in defiance of unjust governments.   We treat privacy and
security as matters of life and death, because for some users, they are.



----------
From: *Joe Touch* <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 1:58 PM
To: Matt Mathis <[email protected]>
Cc: James Sterbenz <[email protected]>, Mark Allman <[email protected]>


Hi, Matt,

I'm not aware of such systems. We use mailman here at ISI, as do a few
other organizations (IEEE, etc.), and it operates on email only after it
has been received by sendmail AFAICT. That appears to be true for other
systems, because none appear to have their servers integrated with sendmail
servers AFAICT.

Joe