Subject:
|
Re: lugnet.* discussion groups by mail
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 27 Oct 1998 03:37:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
918 times
|
| |
|
|
lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman) writes:
> mattdm@mattdm.org (Matthew Miller) writes:
>
> > Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> > > > How will you deal with non-LUGnet-valid users posting to mailing lists?
> > >
> > > Silently ignore them. (It's smart enough to silently reject messages
> > > submitted though non- lugnet.groupname@lugnet.com gateways.)
> >
> > So, if someone is on the crynwr lego robotics mailing list but hadn't
> > "introduced" themselves to LUGnet, their messages would just never appear
> > here? Hmmm. That seems an imperfect solution.
>
> What if messages coming in from alternate e-mail gateways (addresses other than
> lugnet.groupname@lugnet.com -- i.e. mailing lists) had their headers modified
> slightly before posting, so that the 'From' line was set to the address of the
> mailing list, and the original 'From' line was moved to the 'Original-From'
> line? Now all messages would pass without any problems.
Ok, I think there's only one hitch here with this --
My mail->news converter code bounces messages back to their author when
it can't post an article -- except if the message came through a non-
lugnet.groupname@lugnet.com gateway (i.e., a mailing list). So, although
this cleanly avoids bouncing failed messages back to a mailing list (which
would be horrendously bad because everyone on the list would get a copy of the
bounced mail), it does have the problem that rejected messages still disappear
silently into the bit bucket.
Does that matter? Yes (maybe) because certain types of messages are still
rejected even if From-line validation is are circumvented by way of a mailing
list. Any kind of binary content or MIME message is still always rejected.
So perhaps failed messages originating from other gateways should actually be
bounced back after all -- but not to the list itself -- instead to the list's
administrator.
Would that be better or worse than deleting the message silently? I guess it'd
be up to the list administrator on a case-by-case basis.
Thoughts?
--Todd
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: lugnet.* discussion groups by mail
|
| (...) Do silent bouncing, particularly in the case of bouncing for attachments/binary content. If it made it through the list, they can either police themselves (ie, flame their own members) or that type of content is allowable on that list. (...) (26 years ago, 27-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: lugnet.* discussion groups by mail
|
| (...) I think that might be ok. Because the person sending the message to the e-mail list might not necessarily even care about whether LUGnet accepted the message. Just like if a list-recipient's mailbox were full or otherwise not accepting mail -- (...) (26 years ago, 27-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: lugnet.* discussion groups by mail
|
| (...) What if messages coming in from alternate e-mail gateways (addresses other than lugnet.groupname@lugnet.com -- i.e. mailing lists) had their headers modified slightly before posting, so that the 'From' line was set to the address of the (...) (26 years ago, 27-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
20 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
