Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward
We're aware of the spam problem and have our top people working on it. Reports of other lingering issues from the change would be appreciated, though. Thanks, Steve On Jul 12, 2011, at 5:03 AM, jim deleskie wrote:
+1
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:32 AM, William Pitcock <nenolod@systeminplace.net> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:50:38 +0100 (BST) Tim Franklin <tim@pelican.org> wrote:
Thankfully, the current test has been a success.
Including stopping non-members from posting to the list, and other anti-spam?
I've got a sudden influx this morning of spam addressed to nanog@nanog.org :(
Ditto. Getting lots of crap here.
William
Steve, I'm seeing the following issues, also as reported by others: * No RFC 2369 headers means a fun time filtering and no unsubscribe info (maybe that one is on purpose? :) I kid!) * The mailing list is stripping out all Received: headers from prior to the message hitting the listserver * For me at least, messages seem to be delivered out of order - I received this message almost immediately, but messages from 2 hours ago are still making their way into my mailbox. This was not occurring before and it's not a problem with my mail provider. Warm regards, Ben -----Original Message----- From: "Steve Feldman" <feldman@twincreeks.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 10:00am To: deleskie@gmail.com Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward We're aware of the spam problem and have our top people working on it. Reports of other lingering issues from the change would be appreciated, though. Thanks, Steve On Jul 12, 2011, at 5:03 AM, jim deleskie wrote:
+1
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:32 AM, William Pitcock <nenolod@systeminplace.net> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:50:38 +0100 (BST) Tim Franklin <tim@pelican.org> wrote:
Thankfully, the current test has been a success.
Including stopping non-members from posting to the list, and other anti-spam?
I've got a sudden influx this morning of spam addressed to nanog@nanog.org :(
Ditto. Getting lots of crap here.
William
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Carleton" <ben@bencarleton.com>
* The mailing list is stripping out all Received: headers from prior to the message hitting the listserver
You're the third person to report that, but *I* am seeing incoming Received headers in my messages here -- yours, for example, has them all, even prior to the message hitting s0. Great name, there, BTW. "s0". Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
On 7/12/11 10:13 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Carleton"<ben@bencarleton.com>
* The mailing list is stripping out all Received: headers from prior to the message hitting the listserver
You're the third person to report that, but *I* am seeing incoming Received headers in my messages here -- yours, for example, has them all, even prior to the message hitting s0.
Great name, there, BTW. "s0".
Looks like parts of the received like are still there, though butchered and mashed in (most likely in a non-RFC compliant manner) with the one added by 'bulk_maler v1.13' (great name for the mailer, btw, sets off my spammy sense something fierce). Received: from mail.amsl.com ([2001:1890:1112:1::14]) by mail.sosdg.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72-SOSDG) id 1QgVBE-0001sm-Oh; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 23:06:46 -0600 Received: by c1a.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 005B01C39169; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:01:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c1a.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F26731C39160; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:01:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by nanog.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:01:01 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com by localhost (c1a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yrl8e1RiNVz9 for <c5-22-1041@c1a.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:01:00 -0700 (PDT) by c1a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2ED01C38FB6 for <nanog@nanog.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:00:59 -0700 (PDT) by s0.nanog.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>) id 1QgV5e-000MmM-OE for nanog@nanog.org; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 05:00:58 +0000 (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail-in02.adhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0691FCBCD35 for <nanog@nanog.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:00:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from xxxxxxxxxxx) -- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org
On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:23 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
Looks like parts of the received like are still there, though butchered and mashed in (most likely in a non-RFC compliant manner) with the one added by 'bulk_maler v1.13' (great name for the mailer, btw, sets off my spammy sense something fierce).
You seem to be new here. bulk_mailer was something used back in the day to workaround limitations in sendmail for those people operating majordomo (and those using smail etc). it broke the chunks into something that sendmail would then allocate multiple processes to. most other mail subsystems can handle the multiple-rcpts in different manners. while it may 'feel' spammy to you, it's certainly not. a simple google of "majordomo and bulk_mailer" should give you a good idea of what's going on. there were a lot of other mail systems that served to help integrate and interoperate back in the day, including qmailer, smail, etc that all attempted to replace sendmail, including providing the uucp interaction necessary for those behind dialup. either way, please try to keep the feedback off-list for now as we undergo this transition. It's hard to move a large list like this without trouble. I've been party to many such list moves in the past and they usually have all sorts of trouble. admins@nanog.org is the right place for your feedback right now. - Jared
On 7/12/11 10:37 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
You seem to be new here.
Since you asked, no, been around alot longer then I care to remember.
bulk_mailer was something used back in the day to workaround limitations in sendmail for those people operating majordomo (and those using smail etc). it broke the chunks into something that sendmail would then allocate multiple processes to. most other mail subsystems can handle the multiple-rcpts in different manners.
I actually was writing sendmail mc/cf files back in the 90s, and used to have a reasonably high traffic majordomo setup. Don't remember anything about bulk_mailer, but then again I stopped using majordomo around 10 years ago, so my memory may be going on stuff like that.
while it may 'feel' spammy to you, it's certainly not.
Hey, I call it as I see it. When you get to pour through spamtraps all day and evening looking at headers for common traits, yeah, things like 'bulk_mailer' stand out.
a simple google of "majordomo and bulk_mailer" should give you a good idea of what's going on.
Googling generic terms is quite fruitless these days, esp when all the spammers like to call their products bulk mailers. But, thank you for pointing out the context it is used in. I'm not the only one who expressed curiosity over this 'bulk_mailer' program, so please don't shoot me just cause I mentioned something about a pretty generic program name that throws up red flags whenever I see it. -- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org
----- Original Message -----
On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:23 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
Looks like parts of the received like are still there, though butchered and mashed in (most likely in a non-RFC compliant manner) with the one added by 'bulk_maler v1.13' (great name for the mailer, btw, sets off my spammy sense something fierce).
You seem to be new here.
bulk_mailer was something used back in the day to workaround limitations in sendmail for those people operating majordomo (and those using smail etc). it broke the chunks into something that sendmail would then allocate multiple processes to. most other mail subsystems can handle the multiple-rcpts in different manners.
while it may 'feel' spammy to you, it's certainly not.
a simple google of "majordomo and bulk_mailer" should give you a good idea of what's going on.
there were a lot of other mail systems that served to help integrate and interoperate back in the day, including qmailer, smail, etc that all attempted to replace sendmail, including providing the uucp interaction necessary for those behind dialup.
either way, please try to keep the feedback off-list for now as we undergo this transition. It's hard to move a large list like this without trouble. I've been party to many such list moves in the past and they usually have all sorts of trouble.
admins@nanog.org is the right place for your feedback right now.
- Jared
Feeling a bit of Déjà vu as I deployed bulk_mailer for the NANOG list back in November of 1996. It used sendmail+bulk_mailer for delivery until March of 1999 when we transitioned to Postfix. It was transitioned again in April 2008 to Exim and Mailman. Unfortunately, my memory is a bit hazy on whether there were any specific issues with bulk_mailer that caused the switch to Postfix. My main concern with the bulk_mailer code is that it hasn't been touched in over a decade -- ftp://cs.utk.edu/pub/moore/bulk_mailer I've have some concerns with AMS based on my experience with the IETF mailing list. It has had ongoing issues with out-of-sequence delivery. Based on the Received headers, it's seems pretty clear the re-ordering is occurring internal to the AMS servers. It appears they may be trying something different with the NANOG list as the IETF list does not employ bulk_mailer. -Larry
On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:46 PM, Larry J. Blunk wrote:
I've have some concerns with AMS based on my experience with the IETF mailing list. It has had ongoing issues with out-of-sequence delivery. Based on the Received headers, it's seems pretty clear the re-ordering is occurring internal to the AMS servers. It appears they may be trying something different with the NANOG list as the IETF list does not employ bulk_mailer.
ietf.org is mailman and postfix.
-Larry
----- Original Message -----
On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:46 PM, Larry J. Blunk wrote:
I've have some concerns with AMS based on my experience with the IETF mailing list. It has had ongoing issues with out-of-sequence delivery. Based on the Received headers, it's seems pretty clear the re-ordering is occurring internal to the AMS servers. It appears they may be trying something different with the NANOG list as the IETF list does not employ bulk_mailer.
ietf.org is mailman and postfix.
Right, should have mentioned that. Here's the Received headers from a message yesterday that apparently had a 23 hour delay internal to ietfa.amsl.org. You can also see it is out of sequence in the IETF mailing list archives. There are some other recent emails that were sent on July 8th and did not get delivered until Juth 11th. -Larry Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by sfpop-ironport04.merit.edu with ESMTP; 12 Jul 2011 11:06:29 -0400 Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7027F21F8CB4; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 08:06:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4D7D21F8E58 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:01:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TAHKv2903pQw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:01:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE6E321F8E4F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:01:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dn3-227.estacado.net (vicuna-alt.estacado.net [75.53.54.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6BG1O4H054438 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:01:25 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-22 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> In-Reply-To: <AE447DE4-CD85-4386-9C97-2008524D2402@nist.gov> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:01:23 -0500 Message-Id: <5BB77043-1674-4FD6-87CB-17DDC1CEEC1C@nostrum.com>
Right, you should, because we are back on s0 (server zero?) and mailman. The headers were being suppressed by the AMSL servers, which are running that strange "bulk_mailer 1.13" software. If you inspect the headers for any of the messages that were forwarded to us from that server (the one that started the thread called "NANOG List Update - Moving Forward" from Michael K Smith, for example), you will see that the headers are being stripped... --bc -----Original Message----- From: "Jay Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 12:13pm To: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Carleton" <ben@bencarleton.com>
* The mailing list is stripping out all Received: headers from prior to the message hitting the listserver
You're the third person to report that, but *I* am seeing incoming Received headers in my messages here -- yours, for example, has them all, even prior to the message hitting s0. Great name, there, BTW. "s0". Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
"JA" == Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> writes:
JA> ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Carleton" <ben@bencarleton.com>
* The mailing list is stripping out all Received: headers from prior to the message hitting the listserver
JA> You're the third person to report that, but *I* am seeing incoming JA> Received headers in my messages here -- yours, for example, has them JA> all, even prior to the message hitting s0. That is because they switched back to the mailman infrastructure, again, after just a few hours on the bulk_mailer infrastructure. Look for mail with an envelope from of help@nanog for the problematic ones. -JimC -- James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
Unconfigured bulk_mailer = lots of unsolicited bulk mail Oh well --srs Sent from my iPad On 13-Jul-2011, at 19:43, James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> wrote:
"JA" == Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> writes:
JA> ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Carleton" <ben@bencarleton.com>
* The mailing list is stripping out all Received: headers from prior to the message hitting the listserver
JA> You're the third person to report that, but *I* am seeing incoming JA> Received headers in my messages here -- yours, for example, has them JA> all, even prior to the message hitting s0.
That is because they switched back to the mailman infrastructure, again, after just a few hours on the bulk_mailer infrastructure.
Look for mail with an envelope from of help@nanog for the problematic ones.
-JimC -- James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
participants (9)
-
Ben Carleton -
Brielle Bruns -
James Cloos -
Jared Mauch -
Jay Ashworth -
Joel Jaeggli -
Larry J. Blunk -
Steve Feldman -
Suresh Ramasubramanian