21 Jan
2023
21 Jan
'23
1:18 p.m.
Since the switchover I am getting more and more of my messages
rejected as suspected SPAM. Anyone else seeing this?
bill
21 Jan
21 Jan
2:08 p.m.
On Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 10:18 AM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Since the switchover I am getting more and more of my messages
rejected as suspected SPAM. Anyone else seeing this?
No but I wish the list was configured differently so From: was the actual
sender with a Reply-To of the list. Plus of course ListId:
Right now From: is "sender name via cc talk" which isn't unique since
some
people just have a first name. Plus a Cc: sender email
Makes blocking individual senders hard(er), at least on Gmail.
23 Jan
23 Jan
3:50 a.m.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023, Tony Jones wrote:
No but I wish the list was configured differently so
From: was the actual
sender with a Reply-To of the list. Plus of course ListId:
Right now From: is "sender name via cc talk" which isn't unique since
some
people just have a first name. Plus a Cc: sender email
I've solved this problem with a simple procmail rule:
#####
REPLYTO_=`formail -cXCc: | cut -d',' -f1 | sed -e 's/Cc: //' | sed -e
's/\"/\\\"/g'`
0 fw
* ^To:.*classiccmp|^Cc:.*classiccmp
| sed -e 's/\[cctalk\] //g' | formail -i "From: $REPLYTO_" -i
"Reply-To: ClassicCmp <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>" -I "Cc:"
#####
Christian
12:04 p.m.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 12:51 AM Christian Corti via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023, Tony Jones wrote:
The issue is that Gmail filtering isn't great at filtering the list, the
way it's setup. A lot of people use it. Clicking to block the sender
blocks the entire list. Creating custom filters is somewhat in exact due
to the odd way the listsrv is configured.
Procmail, sure but ....
No but I wish the list was configured differently
so From: was the actual
sender with a Reply-To of the list. Plus of course ListId:
Right now From: is "sender name via cc talk" which isn't unique since
some
people just have a first name. Plus a Cc: sender
email
I've solved this problem with a simple procmail rule:
#####
REPLYTO_=`formail -cXCc: | cut -d',' -f1 | sed -e 's/Cc: //' | sed -e
's/\"/\\\"/g'`
0 fw
* ^To:.*classiccmp|^Cc:.*classiccmp
| sed -e 's/\[cctalk\] //g' | formail -i "From: $REPLYTO_" -i
"Reply-To:
ClassicCmp <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>" -I "Cc:"
#####
8:12 p.m.
On 1/23/23 10:04 AM, Tony Jones via cctalk wrote:
The issue is that Gmail filtering isn't great at
filtering the list,
the way it's setup. A lot of people use it. Clicking to block the
sender blocks the entire list.
You bring up a valid concern, people filtering the entire list instead
of a specific actual sender. But I suspect that applies to many mailing
lists.
Given contemporary email security measures (DMARC), it's neigh
impossible for an intermediate mailing list to send an email address
with the poster's email in the From: field.
Creating custom filters is somewhat in exact due to
the odd way the
listsrv is configured.
I suspect that many of us will agree that Gmail leaves a lot to be
desired when compared to what more traditional MUAs can do.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
8:30 p.m.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 5:14 PM Grant Taylor via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 1/23/23 10:04 AM, Tony Jones via cctalk wrote:
No other list I'm a member of sets the headers this way.
Anything send from groups.io (which has a very nice MUTE topic feature) is:
From: actual email
Reply-To: list address
List-Id: list address
The issue is that Gmail filtering isn't great
at filtering the list,
the way it's setup. A lot of people use it. Clicking to block the
sender blocks the entire list.
You bring up a valid concern, people filtering the entire list instead
of a specific actual sender. But I suspect that applies to many mailing
lists.
8:36 p.m.
On 1/23/23 1:50 AM, Christian Corti via cctalk wrote:
I've solved this problem with a simple procmail
rule:
I did similar.
#####
REPLYTO_=`formail -cXCc: | cut -d',' -f1 | sed -e 's/Cc: //' | sed -e
's/\"/\\\"/g'`
0 fw
* ^To:.*classiccmp|^Cc:.*classiccmp
| sed -e 's/\[cctalk\] //g' | formail -i "From: $REPLYTO_" -i
"Reply-To:
ClassicCmp <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>" -I "Cc:"
#####
Thank you for sharing your rules. I'm enhancing the rules that I had
based on something that you're doing.
...
originalPoster=`formail -c -zxCc:`
...
|/path/to/formail -fb -i "From: $originalPoster" -i "List-Post:
<mailto:cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>>" -R Reply-To Old-Reply-To
N.B. the -z option removes leading and trailing whitespaces on fields
extracted with -x. So you can get /just/ the Cc: header's contents.
My only qualm about this is if the original poster posted with a
Reply-To:. I don't currently have logic in place to extract their
Reply-To, if it exists, and preserve it. But, I think I'll simply live
with that bug for now. There's a chance -- I've not looked -- that any
existing Reply-To: is overwritten by the mailing list. -- Maybe I
should test that. }:-)
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
9:03 p.m.
On 1/23/23 6:36 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
There's a chance that any existing Reply-To: is
overwritten by the
mailing list. -- Maybe I should test that. }:-)
It seems as if the list adds its' self to the Reply-To: header.
"General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
So it may be possible to remove that to artificially re-create an
original Reply-To: header.
}:-)
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
22 Jan
22 Jan
5:50 p.m.
Since the switchover I am getting more and more of my
messages
rejected as suspected SPAM. Anyone else seeing this?
bill
Same here bill. I contacted the new list owner and the response was pretty much tough
cookies....
-Ali
p.s. It would be interesting to see if this one makes it through! LOL.
5:52 p.m.
We hear u loud and clear
On Sun., Jan. 22, 2023, 4:50 p.m. Ali via cctalk, <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
Since the
switchover I am getting more and more of my messages
rejected as suspected SPAM. Anyone else seeing this?
bill
Same here bill. I contacted the new list owner and the response was pretty
much tough cookies....
-Ali
p.s. It would be interesting to see if this one makes it through! LOL.
5:55 p.m.
On 1/22/2023 4:52 PM, Adrian Stoness via cctalk wrote:
We hear u loud and clear
On Sun., Jan. 22, 2023, 4:50 p.m. Ali via cctalk, <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
>> Since the switchover I am getting more and more of my messages
>> rejected as suspected SPAM. Anyone else seeing this?
>>
>> bill
> Same here bill. I contacted the new list owner and the response was pretty
> much tough cookies....
>
> -Ali
>
> p.s. It would be interesting to see if this one makes it through! LOL.
>
>
I'm glad I'm not the only one having rejections. I noticed a resend
tends to get it onto the list, which seems like a bogus filter (He's a
spammer, DENY!... Um, he sent it again, I guess not, let it through...:-)
Jim
--
Jim Brain
brain(a)jbrain.com
www.jbrain.com
6:03 p.m.
I'm glad I'm not the only one having
rejections. I noticed a resend
tends to get it onto the list, which seems like a bogus filter (He's a
spammer, DENY!... Um, he sent it again, I guess not, let it
through...:-)
Jim,
My understanding on this is that the filter is based on IP address so if your provider has
a server name for their SMTP that maps to a number of IPs some could be blocked while
others are not. Today, I must be on a "clean" IP!
-Ali
7:29 p.m.
On 2023-01-22 23:50, Ali via cctalk wrote:
> Since the switchover I am getting more and more of
my messages
> rejected as suspected SPAM. Anyone else seeing this?
Same here bill. I contacted the new list owner and the
response was
pretty much tough cookies....
This might be a very good thing for the list, if people start trimming
quotes. Please don't try to un-toughen those cookies. :-)
Ángel
7:52 p.m.
On 1/22/23 19:29, Angel M Alganza via cctalk wrote:
On 2023-01-22 23:50, Ali via cctalk wrote:
Size had nothing to do with it. Both of mine that were rejected were
trimmed down to just a couple lines. The more likely effect is lose
of content. I don't usually try a second time and only resent one of
those. Could result in people not commenting even when their input
could be valuable. Or even leaving.
bill
> Since the switchover I am getting more and
more of my messages
> rejected as suspected SPAM. Anyone else seeing this?
Same here bill. I contacted the new list owner
and the response was
pretty much tough cookies....
This might be a very good thing for the list, if people start trimming
quotes. Please don't try to un-toughen those cookies. :-)
23 Jan
23 Jan
2:35 a.m.
On 2023-01-23 01:52, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
On 1/22/23 19:29, Angel M Alganza via cctalk wrote:
> This might be a very good thing for the list, if
people start trimming
> quotes. Please don't try to un-toughen those cookies. :-)
Size had nothing to do with it. Both of mine that
were rejected were
trimmed down to just a couple lines. The more likely effect is lose
of content. I don't usually try a second time and only resent one of
those. Could result in people not commenting even when their input
could be valuable. Or even leaving.
I know size has nothing to do, but probably links or excessive
formatting might contribute. I still think that it'd be a good thing if
quotes are trimmed and mail is better edited overall. I'm nobody and my
opinion isn't very relevant, but I try to read every message on the list
as far as I can understand or, sadly sometimes, when I can't make sense
of what's new or relevant on a thread anymore. In those cases, I think
we are better off without even receiving them, of course, IMO.
Ángel
548
days inactive
551
days old
14 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Adrian Stoness -
Ali -
Angel M Alganza -
Bill Gunshannon -
Christian Corti -
Grant Taylor -
Jim Brain -
Tony Jones