data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9a691/9a691cf013be340560f8aa0183d5a4298c4b3cd3" alt=""
Can anyone say why we are not putting "Precedence: bulk" on maillist traffic passed by mailman? I seem to recall raising the issue, and having objections, but i'm not recalling the objections, and my yearning to have vacation programs behave like we want (ignoring the messages) is still increasing. So i propose again that we inject our own precedence header iff one is not already there...
Ken
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 14:34:08 -0800 (PST) From: via the vacation program <murdock@psych.ucsb.edu> Subject: away from my mail
I will be out of the office until Monday December 14. Your email regarding
"Re: [Mailman-Users] Compilation problems"
will be read when I return.
Larry Murdock
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/12f63/12f63a124acbe324e11def541fbedba0199c815f" alt=""
"JV" == John Viega <John@list.org> writes:
JV> I think you're *supposed* to use "Precedence: list" for a
JV> mailing list. Might want to check the RFC.
I'm not finding this in the docs I've consulted, RFC 2076 and its Jan-1998 update:
http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme/ietf/ietf-mail-attributes.html
Looks like Precedence: bulk is as close as it gets. Interesting enough, we don't add this to posted messages, but we *do* add this to emailed passwords. I'll try to add this, and (maybe) other list related headers referred to in the document.
-Barry
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9a691/9a691cf013be340560f8aa0183d5a4298c4b3cd3" alt=""
On Sat, 19 Dec 1998, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
I actually did look it over a bit, and from RFC 822 (or somesuch) it sounds like precedence: bulk has a dubious pedegree. More importantly, after reviewing the vacation man page, i realized that the precedence: bulk header would be redundant for mailing list traffic, since most of the kinds of things that respect it also refrain from responding to messages that do not have the recipient's address explicitly mentioned among the destination addresses, which is inherently the case for maillist traffic - so the precedence: bulk is unnecessary. (I should have mentioned this when i originally realized this.) So i'm not sure adding precedence bulk is a good idea.
The password reminders (and other administrative messages) are another matter, because they are directed to specific individuals. I actually added the precedence: bulk to the password reminders in a mad scramble just before the end of last month - the scramble was because i *dreaded* the deluge of vacation-message responses i was getting, as mailman-owner, from the python.org mailing list mass reminders delivery...
Ken
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/12f63/12f63a124acbe324e11def541fbedba0199c815f" alt=""
"KM" == Ken Manheimer <klm@cnri.reston.va.us> writes:
KM> So i'm not sure adding precedence bulk is a good idea.
Already, I suppose we can forget it, even though it would be trivial to add. I think you've got the right trade-off. I do want to look at adding the other IETF draft mailinglist headers, and may look into that.
-Barry
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/23476/234760a4d7ccb261358caf881f0c0754379677cd" alt=""
We just had a mail routing loop disaster on one of our mailing lists (not run with mailmail). A list subscriber had a mis-behaved vacation responder which flooded the list with about 100 copies of a vacation message in the course of a couple of hours before it got noticed. You can imagine the mess this caused.
Does mailman have any soft of circuit breaker to prevent something like this? If so, it would probably be the incentive we need to change from majordomo to mailman. I guess the right heuristic to have prevented this would be something like refusing mail from anybody if they have sent more than N messages in X minutes. I could even imagine a fast-blow and slow-blow threshold, i.e. "5 messages in 10 minutes or 20 messages in 24 hours" type of thing. Is this possible?
Roy Smith <roy@popmail.med.nyu.edu> New York University School of Medicine 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/12f63/12f63a124acbe324e11def541fbedba0199c815f" alt=""
"JV" == John Viega <John@list.org> writes:
JV> I think you're *supposed* to use "Precedence: list" for a
JV> mailing list. Might want to check the RFC.
I'm not finding this in the docs I've consulted, RFC 2076 and its Jan-1998 update:
http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme/ietf/ietf-mail-attributes.html
Looks like Precedence: bulk is as close as it gets. Interesting enough, we don't add this to posted messages, but we *do* add this to emailed passwords. I'll try to add this, and (maybe) other list related headers referred to in the document.
-Barry
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9a691/9a691cf013be340560f8aa0183d5a4298c4b3cd3" alt=""
On Sat, 19 Dec 1998, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
I actually did look it over a bit, and from RFC 822 (or somesuch) it sounds like precedence: bulk has a dubious pedegree. More importantly, after reviewing the vacation man page, i realized that the precedence: bulk header would be redundant for mailing list traffic, since most of the kinds of things that respect it also refrain from responding to messages that do not have the recipient's address explicitly mentioned among the destination addresses, which is inherently the case for maillist traffic - so the precedence: bulk is unnecessary. (I should have mentioned this when i originally realized this.) So i'm not sure adding precedence bulk is a good idea.
The password reminders (and other administrative messages) are another matter, because they are directed to specific individuals. I actually added the precedence: bulk to the password reminders in a mad scramble just before the end of last month - the scramble was because i *dreaded* the deluge of vacation-message responses i was getting, as mailman-owner, from the python.org mailing list mass reminders delivery...
Ken
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/12f63/12f63a124acbe324e11def541fbedba0199c815f" alt=""
"KM" == Ken Manheimer <klm@cnri.reston.va.us> writes:
KM> So i'm not sure adding precedence bulk is a good idea.
Already, I suppose we can forget it, even though it would be trivial to add. I think you've got the right trade-off. I do want to look at adding the other IETF draft mailinglist headers, and may look into that.
-Barry
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/23476/234760a4d7ccb261358caf881f0c0754379677cd" alt=""
We just had a mail routing loop disaster on one of our mailing lists (not run with mailmail). A list subscriber had a mis-behaved vacation responder which flooded the list with about 100 copies of a vacation message in the course of a couple of hours before it got noticed. You can imagine the mess this caused.
Does mailman have any soft of circuit breaker to prevent something like this? If so, it would probably be the incentive we need to change from majordomo to mailman. I guess the right heuristic to have prevented this would be something like refusing mail from anybody if they have sent more than N messages in X minutes. I could even imagine a fast-blow and slow-blow threshold, i.e. "5 messages in 10 minutes or 20 messages in 24 hours" type of thing. Is this possible?
Roy Smith <roy@popmail.med.nyu.edu> New York University School of Medicine 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
participants (4)
-
Barry A. Warsaw
-
John Viega
-
Ken Manheimer
-
Roy Smith