FW: [SLE] rejected email to list
On Thursday, June 30, 2005 @ 4:26 AM, I wrote:
On Wednesday, June 29, 2005 @ 7:23 AM, Art Fore wrote:
<suse-linux-e@lists.suse.com>: ezmlm-reject: fatal: message already has a Mailing-List header (maybe I should be a sublist) (#5.7.2)
--- Below this line is a copy of the message.
Return-Path: <art.fore@comcast.net> Received: (qmail 26996 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2005 15:18:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Relay2.suse.de) (195.135.221.8) by 0 with SMTP; 29 Jun 2005 15:18:38 -0000 Received: from Relay2.suse.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41B43451E for <suse-linux-e@lists.suse.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:18:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Relay2.suse.de ([127.0.0.1]) by Relay2.suse.de (Relay2 [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 06960-09 for <suse-linux-e@lists.suse.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:18:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (ns2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by Relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 150234509 for <suse-linux-e@lists.suse.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:18:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from sccrmhc14.comcast.net (sccrmhc14.comcast.net [204.127.202.59]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B6951D29B for <suse-linux-e@suse.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:18:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.121.33] (adsl-71-129-145-33.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net[71.129.145.33]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc14) with ESMTP id <20050629151826014003p666e>; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:18:32 +0000 Message-ID: <42C2BBBB.5080804@comcast.net> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 08:18:19 -0700 From: Art Fore <art.fore@comcast.net> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: SPAM: Evolution-Thunderbird Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at Relay2.suse.de X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=5.4 tagged_above=-20.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_80, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS X-Spam-Level: ***** X-Spam-Flag: YES
This line seems to stick out --
Received: from [192.168.121.33]
Why is there no name attached to 192.168.121.33? To a spam filter, it would seem it would look like it was coming from an address with no real sender (maybe like it's being generated from some sort of spam engine). Sort of like you getting a note from me and the "From" being blank.
Greg Wallace
I have previously relayed messages through my email account from inside another network and gotten messages back saying I wasn't a registered user. Maybe if the address had been missing my name I would have gotten a spam message instead. Are the messages you have been sending that have been getting trough being relayed, or are you sending those directly from your suse-linux-e registered email address? Greg W.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Thursday 2005-06-30 at 05:43 -0800, Greg Wallace wrote:
I have previously relayed messages through my email account from inside another network and gotten messages back saying I wasn't a registered user. Maybe if the address had been missing my name I would have gotten a spam message instead. Are the messages you have been sending that have been getting trough being relayed, or are you sending those directly from your suse-linux-e registered email address?
He said he was using his ISP relay server, and that is true, you can see it in the posted headers. That's not the problem. The problem is spamassassin in SuSE's server classifying his email as spam. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFCxAGytTMYHG2NR9URAi3FAJ905THUMtlL63mleJp75YTJNOiCDgCeM7E0 tJO0aRkvmFFzSCQDvhivL7U= =Et9m -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----Original Message----- From: Carlos E. R. [mailto:robin1.listas@tiscali.es] Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 6:29 AM To: SLE Subject: Re: FW: [SLE] rejected email to list -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Thursday 2005-06-30 at 05:43 -0800, Greg Wallace wrote:
I have previously relayed messages through my email account from inside another network and gotten messages back saying I wasn't a registered user. Maybe if the address had been missing my name I would have gotten a spam message instead. Are the messages you have been sending that have been getting trough being relayed, or are you sending those directly from your suse-linux-e registered email address?
He said he was using his ISP relay server, and that is true, you can see it in the posted headers. That's not the problem. The problem is spamassassin in SuSE's server classifying his email as spam. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson OK. I thought -- DNS_FROM_RFC_POST was complaining about there being no domain DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS was complaining there being no name in "from [192.168.121.33]", when usually you see "from joe@somewebsite.com [nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn], where I would think joe would be DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS and somewebsite.com would be DNS_FROM_RFC_POST Greg W
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Thursday 2005-06-30 at 06:55 -0800, Greg Wallace wrote:
He said he was using his ISP relay server, and that is true, you can see it in the posted headers.
That's not the problem. The problem is spamassassin in SuSE's server classifying his email as spam.
OK. I thought --
DNS_FROM_RFC_POST was complaining about there being no domain DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS was complaining there being no name
in "from [192.168.121.33]", when usually you see "from joe@somewebsite.com [nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn], where I would think joe would be DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS and somewebsite.com would be DNS_FROM_RFC_POST
The oficial description of those two SA reports are these (from '/usr/share/spamassassin/20_dnsbl_tests.cf'): describe DNS_FROM_RFC_POST Envelope sender in postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org describe DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS Envelope sender in whois.rfc-ignorant.org And, the "envelope sender" is the adress included in this header: |> Return-Path: <art.fore at comcast.net> Therefore, what those two reports are saying, strictly speaking, is that comcast.net is listed in both postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org and whois.rfc-ignorant.org lists, nothing more. Why they have been included is another issue. But there is nothing in the report related to the IP 192.168.121.33, nothing at all. That IP, not knowing the exact network architecture of art.fore machine, is probably his local network address, and it is normal. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFCxEkxtTMYHG2NR9URAgvtAJ9qulgHxwefNn0jFQVTLXxBoAov5wCfRk+v rXLHzQus9E8Fp8tkCnvcS9U= =ijkj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Greg Wallace wrote:
On Thursday, June 30, 2005 @ 4:26 AM, I wrote:
On Wednesday, June 29, 2005 @ 7:23 AM, Art Fore wrote:
<suse-linux-e@lists.suse.com>: ezmlm-reject: fatal: message already has a Mailing-List header (maybe I should be a sublist) (#5.7.2)
--- Below this line is a copy of the message.
Return-Path: <art.fore@comcast.net> Received: (qmail 26996 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2005 15:18:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Relay2.suse.de) (195.135.221.8) by 0 with SMTP; 29 Jun 2005 15:18:38 -0000 Received: from Relay2.suse.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41B43451E for <suse-linux-e@lists.suse.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:18:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Relay2.suse.de ([127.0.0.1]) by Relay2.suse.de (Relay2 [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 06960-09 for <suse-linux-e@lists.suse.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:18:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (ns2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by Relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 150234509 for <suse-linux-e@lists.suse.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:18:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from sccrmhc14.comcast.net (sccrmhc14.comcast.net [204.127.202.59]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B6951D29B for <suse-linux-e@suse.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:18:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.121.33] (adsl-71-129-145-33.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net[71.129.145.33]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc14) with ESMTP id <20050629151826014003p666e>; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:18:32 +0000 Message-ID: <42C2BBBB.5080804@comcast.net> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 08:18:19 -0700 From: Art Fore <art.fore@comcast.net> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: SPAM: Evolution-Thunderbird Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at Relay2.suse.de X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=5.4 tagged_above=-20.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_80, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS X-Spam-Level: ***** X-Spam-Flag: YES
This line seems to stick out --
Received: from [192.168.121.33]
Why is there no name attached to 192.168.121.33? To a spam filter, it would seem it would look like it was coming from an address with no real sender (maybe like it's being generated from some sort of spam engine). Sort of like you getting a note from me and the "From" being blank.
Greg Wallace
I have previously relayed messages through my email account from inside another network and gotten messages back saying I wasn't a registered user. Maybe if the address had been missing my name I would have gotten a spam message instead. Are the messages you have been sending that have been getting trough being relayed, or are you sending those directly from your suse-linux-e registered email address?
Greg W.
I am sending from thunderbird on Windows (unfortunately since I am at work) on our internal network. the 192.168.121.33 is my ip address on the network which is behind a firewall (Sonic I think). Our internet connection is through a PacBell DSL connection. My email accound is on Comcast.net. I don't understand why my machine ip address is shown, seems like that should be from the NAT on the routers.firewall. Also. some email does get through such as the original from this thread and some of my replys. Would like to see the headers to those emails that do get by, but can't do that. Art
Art Fore wrote:
Greg Wallace wrote:
On Thursday, June 30, 2005 @ 4:26 AM, I wrote:
On Wednesday, June 29, 2005 @ 7:23 AM, Art Fore wrote:
<suse-linux-e@lists.suse.com>: ezmlm-reject: fatal: message already has a Mailing-List header (maybe I should be a sublist) (#5.7.2)
--- Below this line is a copy of the message.
Return-Path: <art.fore@comcast.net> Received: (qmail 26996 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2005 15:18:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Relay2.suse.de) (195.135.221.8) by 0 with SMTP; 29 Jun 2005 15:18:38 -0000 Received: from Relay2.suse.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41B43451E for <suse-linux-e@lists.suse.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:18:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Relay2.suse.de ([127.0.0.1]) by Relay2.suse.de (Relay2 [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 06960-09 for <suse-linux-e@lists.suse.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:18:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (ns2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by Relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 150234509 for <suse-linux-e@lists.suse.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:18:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from sccrmhc14.comcast.net (sccrmhc14.comcast.net [204.127.202.59]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B6951D29B for <suse-linux-e@suse.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:18:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.121.33] (adsl-71-129-145-33.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net[71.129.145.33]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc14) with ESMTP id <20050629151826014003p666e>; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:18:32 +0000 Message-ID: <42C2BBBB.5080804@comcast.net> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 08:18:19 -0700 From: Art Fore <art.fore@comcast.net> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: SPAM: Evolution-Thunderbird Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at Relay2.suse.de X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=5.4 tagged_above=-20.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_80, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS X-Spam-Level: ***** X-Spam-Flag: YES
This line seems to stick out --
Received: from [192.168.121.33]
Why is there no name attached to 192.168.121.33? To a spam filter, it would seem it would look like it was coming from an address with no real sender (maybe like it's being generated from some sort of spam engine). Sort of like you getting a note from me and the "From" being blank.
Greg Wallace
I have previously relayed messages through my email account from inside another network and gotten messages back saying I wasn't a registered user. Maybe if the address had been missing my name I would have gotten a spam message instead. Are the messages you have been sending that have been getting trough being relayed, or are you sending those directly from your suse-linux-e registered email address?
Greg W.
I am sending from thunderbird on Windows (unfortunately since I am at work) on our internal network. the 192.168.121.33 is my ip address on the network which is behind a firewall (Sonic I think). Our internet connection is through a PacBell DSL connection. My email accound is on Comcast.net. I don't understand why my machine ip address is shown, seems like that should be from the NAT on the routers.firewall.
Also. some email does get through such as the original from this thread and some of my replys. Would like to see the headers to those emails that do get by, but can't do that.
Art
Tried sending the email via the www.comcast.net browser emal program. Still got rejected. Here is the header: Hi. This is the qmail-send program at lists.suse.com. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. <suse-linux-e@lists.suse.com>: ezmlm-reject: fatal: message already has a Mailing-List header (maybe I should be a sublist) (#5.7.2) --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Return-Path: <art.fore@comcast.net> Received: (qmail 24879 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2005 16:53:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Relay2.suse.de) (195.135.221.8) by 0 with SMTP; 30 Jun 2005 16:53:56 -0000 Received: from Relay2.suse.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E800A58B4 for <suse-linux-e@lists.suse.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:53:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Relay2.suse.de ([127.0.0.1]) by Relay2.suse.de (Relay2 [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 08152-03 for <suse-linux-e@lists.suse.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:53:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mail.suse.de [195.135.220.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by Relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E069F7B for <suse-linux-e@lists.suse.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:53:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net (rwcrmhc12.comcast.net [216.148.227.85]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 393C4E7CC for <suse-linux-e@suse.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:53:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 204.127.197.119 (rwcrwbc80.asp.att.net[204.127.197.180]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <2005063016535201400876ije>; Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:53:52 +0000 Received: from [71.129.145.33] by 204.127.197.119; Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:53:52 +0000 From: art.fore@comcast.net To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: SPAM: Evolution-Thunderbird Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:53:52 +0000 Message-Id: <063020051653.22734.42C423A00006368B000058CE22007601800A9D0100D29B9D0E@comcast.net> X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Dec 17 2004) X-Authenticated-Sender: YXJ0LmZvcmVAY29tY2FzdC5uZXQ= X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at Relay2.suse.de X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=7.2 tagged_above=-20.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_95, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS, NO_REAL_NAME, RCVD_BY_IP, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO X-Spam-Level: ******* X-Spam-Flag: YES Am trying this with the Comcast webmail to see if it gets through. Can anyone tell me if it is possible to export email and addresses from Evolution to Thunderbird and import to Thunderbird from Evolution? My wife is constantly having problems with Evolution locking up, not sending mail, not receiving mail and I would like to try Thunderbird with her on Suse 9.2. Art
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Thursday 2005-06-30 at 10:00 -0700, Art Fore wrote: First, one thing: please, trim your quotes. This email of yours is 10 Kbytes, of which most are old material. Please remember that not everybody is fortunate to have a DSL, cable, etc.
Tried sending the email via the www.comcast.net browser emal program. Still got rejected. Here is the header:
I told you that you have to take this issue with SuSE list administrator. I reported a similar problem, and I know he/they are working on this. On mine, at least, not on yours if you don't report it.
<suse-linux-e@lists.suse.com>: ezmlm-reject: fatal: message already has a Mailing-List header (maybe I should be a sublist) (#5.7.2)
That is just a secondary error, triggered by the first one: being considered a spammer.
Return-Path: <art.fore at comcast.net> ... From: art.fore@comcast.net Subject: SPAM: Evolution-Thunderbird ...
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at Relay2.suse.de X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=7.2 tagged_above=-20.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_95, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS, NO_REAL_NAME, RCVD_BY_IP, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO X-Spam-Level: ******* X-Spam-Flag: YES
BAYES_95 (3.514 3.0) --> the bayes database at Relay2.suse.de has got to be retrained, manually. You must report this, fast! Solving this test would solve your whole problem. DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS --> this is caused by your ISP, and you must, if anything, take the issue with them - that is, supposing they listen to their clients. I know my ISPs don't. NO_REAL_NAME (0.336 0.007) --> change your "from" address to include your real name. You send:
From: art.fore@comcast.net
and SpamAssassin says there is no "" part with a real name, and marks it. The score is low (0.007), but at least yo can do something about it. RCVD_BY_IP (0.051 0.067) --> Received by mail server with no name RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE (0.043 0.000) --> Received: by and from look like IP addresses RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO (1.348 1.248) --> Received: contains an IP address used for HELO I don't think you can do any thing about those, except convincing your ISP to correct it, or switching your ISP. I guess it is complaining about this two headers: | Received: from 204.127.197.119 (rwcrwbc80.asp.att.net[204.127.197.180]) | by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP | id <2005063016535201400876ije>; Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:53:52 +0000 | Received: from [71.129.145.33] by 204.127.197.119; | Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:53:52 +0000
Can anyone tell me if it is possible to export email and addresses from Evolution to Thunderbird and import to Thunderbird from Evolution? My wife is constantly having problems with Evolution locking up, not sending mail, not receiving mail and I would like to try Thunderbird with her on Suse 9.2.
That's an altogether different question. Please, open a new thread with it. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFCxEkDtTMYHG2NR9URAl8AAJ9j3MTJEoQMLpTwQ3un58huCOa4MwCeIsas BLnQmFGozyOl4KNFR8Q/ofI= =zHkc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Can anyone tell me if it is possible to export email and addresses from Evolution to Thunderbird and import to Thunderbird from Evolution? My wife is constantly having problems with Evolution locking up, not sending mail, not receiving mail and I would like to try Thunderbird with her on Suse 9.2.
That's an altogether different question. Please, open a new thread with it.
- -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
iD8DBQFCxEkDtTMYHG2NR9URAl8AAJ9j3MTJEoQMLpTwQ3un58huCOa4MwCeIsas BLnQmFGozyOl4KNFR8Q/ofI= =zHkc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This is the email I have been trying to get through to start a new thread and keeps getting rejected, apparently because of the email program names from what I can see. Art
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Thursday 2005-06-30 at 13:53 -0700, Art Fore wrote:
This is the email I have been trying to get through to start a new thread and keeps getting rejected, apparently because of the email program names from what I can see.
Thus, I repeat, you must inform the SuSE employee responsible for this list, the -owner. Now. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFCxG/ttTMYHG2NR9URAsyEAJ9T6IZUk7gzBRdZyaXeAaqQGxsUrwCcCTpl lXqZyXsFDn7Gjg3lfaLjVSA= =IH87 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Friday 2005-07-01 at 00:19 +0200, I wrote:
Thus, I repeat, you must inform the SuSE employee responsible for this list, the -owner. Now.
Clarification: he can help you with one of the tokens, the bayes_95 and similar, not with the rest. The rest are the responsibility of your ISP. But bayes_95 gives 3.0 points, while your total score is 7.2. Substracting those 3 points, you'd get 4.2, and you would pass. So I insist: contact this list admin. I know what I'm talking about. It is a known problem. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFCxIuGtTMYHG2NR9URAsubAJ4j/luKt36kifAyTyIPd0kgyjaLdgCgk5TH HtAWL75NIf31jPoCPU7XZE8= =AJ8v -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I already did yesterday, no change yet. Art Carlos E. R. wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
The Thursday 2005-06-30 at 13:53 -0700, Art Fore wrote:
This is the email I have been trying to get through to start a new thread and keeps getting rejected, apparently because of the email program names from what I can see.
Thus, I repeat, you must inform the SuSE employee responsible for this list, the -owner. Now.
- -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
iD8DBQFCxG/ttTMYHG2NR9URAsyEAJ9T6IZUk7gzBRdZyaXeAaqQGxsUrwCcCTpl lXqZyXsFDn7Gjg3lfaLjVSA= =IH87 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thursday, June 30, 2005 @ 9:01 AM, Art Fore wrote:
Art Fore wrote:
Greg Wallace wrote:
On Thursday, June 30, 2005 @ 4:26 AM, I wrote:
On Wednesday, June 29, 2005 @ 7:23 AM, Art Fore wrote:
<suse-linux-e@lists.suse.com>: ezmlm-reject: fatal: message already has a Mailing-List header (maybe I should be a sublist) (#5.7.2)
--- Below this line is a copy of the message.
Return-Path: <art.fore@comcast.net> Received: (qmail 26996 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2005 15:18:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Relay2.suse.de) (195.135.221.8) by 0 with SMTP; 29 Jun 2005 15:18:38 -0000 Received: from Relay2.suse.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41B43451E for <suse-linux-e@lists.suse.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:18:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Relay2.suse.de ([127.0.0.1]) by Relay2.suse.de (Relay2 [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 06960-09 for <suse-linux-e@lists.suse.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:18:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (ns2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by Relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 150234509 for <suse-linux-e@lists.suse.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:18:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from sccrmhc14.comcast.net (sccrmhc14.comcast.net [204.127.202.59]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B6951D29B for <suse-linux-e@suse.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:18:36 +0200
(CEST)
Received: from [192.168.121.33] (adsl-71-129-145-33.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net[71.129.145.33]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc14) with ESMTP id <20050629151826014003p666e>; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:18:32 +0000 Message-ID: <42C2BBBB.5080804@comcast.net> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 08:18:19 -0700 From: Art Fore <art.fore@comcast.net> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: SPAM: Evolution-Thunderbird Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at Relay2.suse.de X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=5.4 tagged_above=-20.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_80, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS X-Spam-Level: ***** X-Spam-Flag: YES
This line seems to stick out --
Received: from [192.168.121.33]
Why is there no name attached to 192.168.121.33? To a spam filter, it would seem it would look like it was coming from an address with no real sender (maybe like it's being generated from some sort of spam engine). Sort of like you getting a note from me and the "From" being blank.
Greg Wallace
I have previously relayed messages through my email account from inside another network and gotten messages back saying I wasn't a registered user. Maybe if the address had been missing my name I would have gotten a spam message instead. Are the messages you have been sending that have been getting trough being relayed, or are you sending those directly from your suse-linux-e registered email address?
Greg W.
I am sending from thunderbird on Windows (unfortunately since I am at work) on our internal network. the 192.168.121.33 is my ip address on the network which is behind a firewall (Sonic I think). Our internet connection is through a PacBell DSL connection. My email accound is on Comcast.net. I don't understand why my machine ip address is shown, seems like that should be from the NAT on the routers.firewall.
Also. some email does get through such as the original from this thread and some of my replys. Would like to see the headers to those emails that do get by, but can't do that.
Art
Tried sending the email via the www.comcast.net browser emal program. Still got rejected. Here is the header:
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at lists.suse.com. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
<suse-linux-e@lists.suse.com>: ezmlm-reject: fatal: message already has a Mailing-List header (maybe I should be a sublist) (#5.7.2)
--- Below this line is a copy of the message.
Return-Path: <art.fore@comcast.net> Received: (qmail 24879 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2005 16:53:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Relay2.suse.de) (195.135.221.8) by 0 with SMTP; 30 Jun 2005 16:53:56 -0000 Received: from Relay2.suse.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E800A58B4 for <suse-linux-e@lists.suse.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:53:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Relay2.suse.de ([127.0.0.1]) by Relay2.suse.de (Relay2 [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 08152-03 for <suse-linux-e@lists.suse.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:53:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mail.suse.de [195.135.220.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by Relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E069F7B for <suse-linux-e@lists.suse.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:53:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net (rwcrmhc12.comcast.net [216.148.227.85]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 393C4E7CC for <suse-linux-e@suse.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:53:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 204.127.197.119 (rwcrwbc80.asp.att.net[204.127.197.180]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <2005063016535201400876ije>; Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:53:52 +0000 Received: from [71.129.145.33] by 204.127.197.119; Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:53:52 +0000 From: art.fore@comcast.net To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: SPAM: Evolution-Thunderbird Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:53:52 +0000 Message-Id: <063020051653.22734.42C423A00006368B000058CE22007601800A9D0100D29B9D0E@comc ast.net> X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Dec 17 2004) X-Authenticated-Sender: YXJ0LmZvcmVAY29tY2FzdC5uZXQ= X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at Relay2.suse.de X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=7.2 tagged_above=-20.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_95, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS, NO_REAL_NAME, RCVD_BY_IP, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO X-Spam-Level: ******* X-Spam-Flag: YES
Am trying this with the Comcast webmail to see if it gets through.
Can anyone tell me if it is possible to export email and addresses from Evolution to Thunderbird and import to Thunderbird from Evolution? My wife is constantly having problems with Evolution locking up, not sending mail, not receiving mail and I would like to try Thunderbird with her on Suse 9.2.
Art
Art: I have 2 Wan connections, DSL and Cable Modem. I am only registered on suse-linux-e through the DSL. My From address in my mail client is set to my DSL address (jgregw@acsalaska.net). If I switch to Cable Modem and post to the list from there, I get what you're showing here. In that case, the email is originating from the cable modem network but using the DSL SMTP (and DSL account email address). For some reason, suse-linux-e doesn't like mail that is sent through an SMTP that is on a different network from where the originating mail comes from. Greg Wallace
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Thursday 2005-06-30 at 19:40 -0800, Greg Wallace wrote: Please, ¡trim you quotes! ¡Your email had 10 kilobytes of quoted old material!
For some reason, suse-linux-e doesn't like mail that is sent through an SMTP that is on a different network from where the originating mail comes from.
No, that is not true. I already said the exact causes of the rejection, so I'm not going to repeat them. The main problem is your relay host (comcast.net) being listed in some blacklists, namely postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org and whois.rfc-ignorant.org. That alone yields 1.91 points of "spamminess". Only your provider can tack that issue. Then there is the very important point of the Bayes database of SA at SuSE being automatically trained, and badly, giving you a 95% probability of being a spammer. This point has to be handled by this list administrator. As I said, find the thread where I reported on this on list, find the answer I got, and forward that info off-list to the address listed there. ASAP. The more reports he gets, the more attention this problem will get. You are not the only one affected. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFCxS3YtTMYHG2NR9URAlURAJkB8XEJJG0kTEKa//Tbh49qbhz1SACfRMmK O4x2VH6k5NY2t9vHipJ1Rq8= =D7wZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Art:
I have 2 Wan connections, DSL and Cable Modem. I am only registered on suse-linux-e through the DSL. My From address in my mail client is set to my DSL address (jgregw@acsalaska.net). If I switch to Cable Modem and post to the list from there, I get what you're showing here. In that case, the email is originating from the cable modem network but using the DSL SMTP (and DSL account email address). For some reason, suse-linux-e doesn't like mail that is sent through an SMTP that is on a different network from where the originating mail comes from.
Greg Wallace
I tried also from the comcast webmail,, still rejected even without the other info in the eaders. Art
Art:
I have 2 Wan connections, DSL and Cable Modem. I am only registered on suse-linux-e through the DSL. My From address in my mail client is set
to
my DSL address (jgregw@acsalaska.net). If I switch to Cable Modem and
to the list from there, I get what you're showing here. In that case,
email is originating from the cable modem network but using the DSL SMTP (and DSL account email address). For some reason, suse-linux-e doesn't
On Friday, July 01, 2005 @ 6:34 AM, Art Fore wrote: post the like
mail that is sent through an SMTP that is on a different network from where the originating mail comes from.
Greg Wallace
I tried also from the comcast webmail,, still rejected even without the other info in the eaders.
Art
Just prior to this post, I connected through my other WAN and sent a post. Let's see what happens. It should hit before this one does. Greg Wallace
On Friday, July 01, 2005 @ 10:33 PM, I wrote:
On Friday, July 01, 2005 @ 6:34 AM, Art Fore wrote:
Art:
I have 2 Wan connections, DSL and Cable Modem. I am only registered on suse-linux-e through the DSL. My From address in my mail client is set to my DSL address (jgregw@acsalaska.net). If I switch to Cable Modem and post to the list from there, I get what you're showing here. In that case, the email is originating from the cable modem network but using the DSL SMTP (and DSL account email address). For some reason, suse-linux-e doesn't like mail that is sent through an SMTP that is on a different network from where the originating mail comes from.
Greg Wallace
I tried also from the comcast webmail,, still rejected even without the other info in the eaders.
Art
Just prior to this post, I connected through my other WAN and sent a post. Let's see what happens. It should hit before this one does.
Greg Wallace
Well, my first message bounced, but not for the same reason. I thought I had gotten the exact same error as you before, but maybe not. Greg Wallace
On Friday, July 01, 2005 @ 11:14 PM, I wrote:
On Friday, July 01, 2005 @ 10:33 PM, I wrote:
On Friday, July 01, 2005 @ 6:34 AM, Art Fore wrote:
Art:
I have 2 Wan connections, DSL and Cable Modem. I am only registered on suse-linux-e through the DSL. My From address in my mail client is set to my DSL address (jgregw@acsalaska.net). If I switch to Cable Modem and post to the list from there, I get what you're showing here. In that case, the email is originating from the cable modem network but using the DSL SMTP (and DSL account email address). For some reason, suse-linux-e doesn't like mail that is sent through an SMTP that is on a different network from where the originating mail comes from.
Greg Wallace
I tried also from the comcast webmail,, still rejected even without the other info in the eaders.
Art
Just prior to this post, I connected through my other WAN and sent a post. Let's see what happens. It should hit before this one does.
Greg Wallace
Well, my first message bounced, but not for the same reason. I thought I had gotten the exact same error as you before, but maybe not.
Greg Wallace
Looks like my email software has gotten smarter. It automatically changed the sending address to the one for the other WAN, which it used to not do. I used to have to manually change that in the email software. Based on that, my test really proved nothing. Greg Wallace
participants (3)
-
Art Fore -
Carlos E. R. -
Greg Wallace