From owner-ietf-mta-filters Tue Jul 1 04:22:39 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h61BMdFK046662 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 04:22:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h61BMduL046661 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 04:22:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h61BMcFK046655 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 04:22:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nsyracus@cnri.reston.va.us) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA06936; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 07:22:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200307011122.HAA06936@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; CC: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-melnikov-sieve-imapflags-05.txt Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:22:33 -0400 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Sieve -- IMAP flag Extension Author(s) : A. Melnikov Filename : draft-melnikov-sieve-imapflags-05.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2003-6-30 Recent discussions have shown that it is desirable to set different [IMAP] flags on message delivery. This can be done, for example, by a Sieve interpreter that works as a part of a Mail Delivery Agent. This document describes an extension to the Sieve mail filtering language for setting [IMAP] flags. The extension allows to set both [IMAP] system flags and [IMAP] keywords. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-melnikov-sieve-imapflags-05.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-melnikov-sieve-imapflags-05.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-melnikov-sieve-imapflags-05.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-6-30151310.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-melnikov-sieve-imapflags-05.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-melnikov-sieve-imapflags-05.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-6-30151310.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From owner-ietf-mta-filters Tue Jul 1 20:50:45 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h623ojFK099268 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:50:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h623ojjE099267 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:50:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from candle.brasslantern.com (snjpca1-ar2-4-64-233-009.snjpca1.dsl-verizon.net [4.64.233.9]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h623ohFK099261 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:50:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from schaefer@closedmail.com) Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h623of300898 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:50:41 -0700 From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <1030702035041.ZM897@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 03:50:41 +0000 In-Reply-To: <3F00B4CD.5090903@elvey.fastmail.fm> Comments: In reply to "Matthew Elvey (FM)" "Quizzic: Spam equivalent to EICAR test virus proposal." (Jun 30, 3:08pm) References: <3F00B4CD.5090903@elvey.fastmail.fm> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Quizzic: Spam equivalent to EICAR test virus proposal. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Just for comparison: SpamAssassin defines what's called the Generic Test for Unsolicited Bulk Email (GTUBE). It's defined as a string matching the regular expression XJS\*C4JDBQADN1\.NSBN3\*2IDNEN\*GTUBE-STANDARD-ANTI-UBE-TEST-EMAIL\*C\.34X appearing anywhere in the message body, after decoding and HTML rendering. (I write the regular expression rather than the string itself so that any of you running spamassassin won't score this message at 1000 points.) From owner-ietf-mta-filters Wed Jul 2 06:31:57 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h62DVvFK056759 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 06:31:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h62DVva6056758 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 06:31:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from starship.enterprise.ucs.ed.ac.uk (starship.enterprise.ucs.ed.ac.uk [129.215.40.70]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h62DVoFK056750 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 06:31:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Nigel@swinson.com) Received: from nigelhome (unverified [80.195.14.206]) by starship.enterprise.ucs.ed.ac.uk (Rockliffe SMTPRA 5.3.3) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:10:12 +0100 Message-ID: <091601c3409b$6785db00$6501a8c0@nigelhome> From: "Nigel Swinson" To: Cc: References: <200307011122.HAA06936@ietf.org> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-melnikov-sieve-imapflags-05.txt Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:11:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: 3.1. Addflag action - Duplicates are allowed and ignored? Do we need to specify that we just ignore them, or should our "list" maintain both entries? I see in 4 and 6 there is a note about this issue, but perhaps it would help to have a comment in this section that "duplicate removal" is seen as optional. 3.2 Removeflag Action - Example contains :globalflags , But :globalflags isn't defined anywhere in the document. I remember it from the old revisions, did it get dropped? If so this example is now out of date... - If duplicate removal is "optional", then what happens if we have two flags, and we are asked to removeflag that flag. We remove both occurrences? Would it perhaps just be easier to say that we MUST do duplicate removal during addflags? Both removal of existing duplicates before we add the new flags, and any new duplicates created after adding the flags? - Don't understand what "Multiple occurrences of removeflag are treated additively." means. Does that mean multiple removeflag actions are treated additively, or does it refer to the content of the flags and answer my previous question about when multiple flags exist with the same name? 10. Extended Example - Extended example contains a few "add" actions that I think should be "addflags". - Suggest that you don't use a variable name of "flags" in the example, as it may confuse. Maybe "MyFlags" or something might be safer? Cheers Nigel From owner-ietf-mta-filters Wed Jul 2 08:20:43 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h62FKgFK063195 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:20:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h62FKgUs063193 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:20:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.fastmail.fm (www.fastmail.fm [66.111.4.2] (may be forged)) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h62FKfFK063179 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:20:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from matthew@elvey.fastmail.fm) Received: from www.fastmail.fm (server1.internal [10.202.2.132]) by localhost.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29EB3393A8 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:20:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 127.0.0.1 ([127.0.0.1] helo=www.fastmail.fm) by messagingengine.com with SMTP; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:20:38 -0400 X-Epoch: 1057159238 X-Sasl-enc: FqMmNUzlP6G41Qcza3WaNw Received: from elvey.fastmail.fm (adsl-63-195-86-147.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.195.86.147]) by www.fastmail.fm (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42156CCE8 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:20:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F02F843.2040805@elvey.fastmail.fm> Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:20:35 -0700 From: "Matthew Elvey (FM)" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: GTUBE/Re: Quizzic: Spam equivalent to EICAR test virus proposal. References: <3F00B4CD.5090903@elvey.fastmail.fm> <1030702035041.ZM897@candle.brasslantern.com> In-Reply-To: <1030702035041.ZM897@candle.brasslantern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Bart Schaefer wrote: >Just for comparison: > >SpamAssassin defines what's called the Generic Test for Unsolicited Bulk >Email (GTUBE). It's defined as a string matching the regular expression > >XJS\*C4JDBQADN1\.NSBN3\*2IDNEN\*GTUBE-STANDARD-ANTI-UBE-TEST-EMAIL\*C\.34X > >appearing anywhere in the message body, after decoding and HTML rendering. > >(I write the regular expression rather than the string itself so that any >of you running spamassassin won't score this message at 1000 points.) > > > Thanks! So a start has been made. http://spamassassin.planetmirror.com/dist/t/data/spam/gtube.eml - a sample. Matt Sergeant of SpamAssassin posted very relevantly to the ASRG about GTUBE in March: https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01527.html+gtube There were a couple replies that are meritless from Vernon Schryver and Kee Hinckley A valid complaint was what about antispam systems that aren't content filters? Enhancement to my scheme to more fully address it: A pseudo-open relay could be established (run by who?) that would (attempt to) relay only Quizzic-compliant messages. It would be listed in all blacklists. The From would be specified to be that of a specified domain, which would go in all domain-based blacklists. (anything@ADVQZWK.com, as previously suggested). It would not 2xx OK the SMTP DATA command, but rather send a 4xx/5xx error (the same one it encountered) if the attempt to relay failed. Matt posted this helpful reply: https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01625.html not realizing that there was a solution to his item 1 w/o spoofing. Sounds like the effort is still needed and the need is there. From owner-ietf-mta-filters Wed Jul 2 18:50:55 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h631otFK096930 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:50:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h631otYS096929 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:50:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rembrandt.esys.ca (rembrandt.esys.ca [198.161.92.131]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h631ooFK096918 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:50:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com) Received: from isode.com (1Cust22.tnt101.lnd4.gbr.da.uu.net [213.116.50.22]) (authenticated) by rembrandt.esys.ca (8.11.6/8.11.0.Beta0) with ESMTP id h631sPV31050; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:54:27 -0600 Message-ID: <3F035670.524FDD98@isode.com> Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:02:24 -0600 From: Alexey Melnikov Organization: Isode Limited X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nigel Swinson CC: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-melnikov-sieve-imapflags-05.txt References: <200307011122.HAA06936@ietf.org> <091601c3409b$6785db00$6501a8c0@nigelhome> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Nigel Swinson wrote: > 3.1. Addflag action > > - Duplicates are allowed and ignored? Do we need to specify that we just > ignore them, or should our "list" maintain both entries? I see in 4 and 6 > there is a note about this issue, but perhaps it would help to have a > comment in this section that "duplicate removal" is seen as optional. Actually I would like to give implementations freedom of choice. > 3.2 Removeflag Action > > - Example contains :globalflags , But :globalflags isn't defined anywhere in > the document. I remember it from the old revisions, did it get dropped? Yes. Fixed now. Thank you. > If so this example is now out of date... > > - If duplicate removal is "optional", then what happens if we have two > flags, and we are asked to removeflag that flag. We remove both > occurrences? Yes, that was my indent. > Would it perhaps just be easier to say that we MUST do > duplicate removal during addflags? Both removal of existing duplicates > before we add the new flags, and any new duplicates created after adding the > flags? > > - Don't understand what "Multiple occurrences of removeflag are treated > additively." means. Does that mean multiple removeflag actions are treated > additively, or does it refer to the content of the flags and answer my > previous question about when multiple flags exist with the same name? The former. I've changed the text a bit to make it more clear. > 10. Extended Example > > - Extended example contains a few "add" actions that I think should be > "addflags". Correct. > - Suggest that you don't use a variable name of "flags" in the example, as > it may confuse. Maybe "MyFlags" or something might be safer? Sure. Alexey __________________________________________ Home Page: http://orthanc.ab.ca/mel IETF standard related pages: http://orthanc.ab.ca/mel/devel/Links.html __________________________________________ From owner-ietf-mta-filters Thu Jul 3 06:33:54 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h63DXsFK058133 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 06:33:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h63DXst7058132 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 06:33:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from pat.uio.no (IDENT:7411@pat.uio.no [129.240.130.16]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h63DXnFK058124 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 06:33:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kjetilho@ifi.uio.no) Received: from mail-mx3.uio.no ([129.240.10.44]) by pat.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #7) id 19Y4Db-00035f-00; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:33:47 +0200 Received: from [129.240.130.16] (helo=pat.uio.no) by mail-mx3.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 19Y4DZ-0002Fs-NB; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:33:45 +0200 Received: from glesvat.ifi.uio.no ([129.240.64.22]) by pat.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #7) id 19Y4DZ-00035I-00; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:33:45 +0200 Received: (from kjetilho@localhost) by glesvat.ifi.uio.no ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:33:41 +0200 (MEST) To: "Matthew Elvey (FM)" Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: GTUBE/Re: Quizzic: Spam equivalent to EICAR test virus proposal. References: <3F00B4CD.5090903@elvey.fastmail.fm> <1030702035041.ZM897@candle.brasslantern.com> <3F02F843.2040805@elvey.fastmail.fm> From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:33:40 +0200 In-Reply-To: <3F02F843.2040805@elvey.fastmail.fm> Message-ID: <1rr8577n0r.fsf@glesvat.ifi.uio.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/20.7 (usg-unix-v) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-MailScanner-Information: This message has been scanned for viruses/spam. Contact postmaster@uio.no if you have questions about this scanning. X-UiO-MailScanner: No virus found Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: [Matthew Elvey (FM)]: > > Matt Sergeant of SpamAssassin posted very relevantly to the ASRG about > GTUBE in March: > https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01527.html+gtube > > There were a couple replies that are meritless from Vernon > Schryver and Kee Hinckley. A valid complaint was what about > antispam systems that aren't content filters? that's a bit harsh on Vernon Schryver, his idea of setting up an auto-responder from a fixed IP-address is exactly what you propose. > Enhancement to my scheme to more fully address it: A pseudo-open > relay could be established (run by who?) probably someone academic, for stability topologywise, and also for IPv6 support. the problem is that willfully getting your host listed in RBL is scary. you never know what people will jump to conclusions and blacklist your entire B-net. (perhaps MIT could run it in its own B-net ;-) > that would (attempt to) relay only Quizzic-compliant messages. might as well leave SMTP out of it. connect to a port, enter a recipient address, and the server will connect to the MX of the source IP. (make sure the reverse and forward lookup match.) the message will be fixed, and therefore not attractive to abuse by spammers. rate limiting per source IP (no more than 10 messages a day?) will stop the people trying to use it to DOS. > Sounds like the effort is still needed and the need is there. it seems to me that asrg is the proper forum, though. -- Kjetil T. | read and make up your own mind | http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html From owner-ietf-mta-filters Thu Jul 3 10:56:18 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h63HuIqt010055 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:56:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h63HuIGa010054 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:56:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.fastmail.fm (www.fastmail.fm [66.111.4.2] (may be forged)) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h63HuGqt010045 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:56:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from matthew@elvey.fastmail.fm) Received: from www.fastmail.fm (server1.internal [10.202.2.132]) by localhost.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DE482B77E; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:56:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 127.0.0.1 ([127.0.0.1] helo=www.fastmail.fm) by messagingengine.com with SMTP; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:56:13 -0400 X-Epoch: 1057254973 X-Sasl-enc: LI7iiRvOokmWDjzJrwJs+A Received: from elvey.fastmail.fm (adsl-66-126-168-113.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [66.126.168.113]) by www.fastmail.fm (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B0FA3097C; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:56:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F046E36.90004@elvey.fastmail.fm> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:56:06 -0700 From: "Matthew Elvey (FM)" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kjetil Torgrim Homme Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: GTUBE/Re: Quizzic: Spam equivalent to EICAR test virus proposal. References: <3F00B4CD.5090903@elvey.fastmail.fm> <1030702035041.ZM897@candle.brasslantern.com> <3F02F843.2040805@elvey.fastmail.fm> <1rr8577n0r.fsf@glesvat.ifi.uio.no> In-Reply-To: <1rr8577n0r.fsf@glesvat.ifi.uio.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote: >[Matthew Elvey (FM)]: > > >> Matt Sergeant of SpamAssassin posted very relevantly to the ASRG about >> GTUBE in March: >> https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01527.html+gtube >> Correction: (take off the +gtube - the URL stopped working with that) https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01527.html >> >> There were a couple replies that are meritless from Vernon >> Schryver and Kee Hinckley. A valid complaint was what about >> antispam systems that aren't content filters? >> >> > >that's a bit harsh on Vernon Schryver, his idea of setting up an >auto-responder from a fixed IP-address is exactly what you propose. > Great. I haven't seen him propose that. I guess I missed it. He's got lots of good ideas, just not on that thread, as far as I saw. Tact and collegiality were missing. My intent was to make others' reading of the thread go quicker by echoing what's said at https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01678.html - he seemed to have misunderstood the purpose. > > > >> Enhancement to my scheme to more fully address it: A pseudo-open >> relay could be established (run by who?) >> >> > >probably someone academic, for stability topologywise, and also for >IPv6 support. the problem is that willfully getting your host listed >in RBL is scary. you never know what people will jump to conclusions >and blacklist your entire B-net. (perhaps MIT could run it in its own >B-net ;-) > ICANN ISOC IESG IETF IANA... so many I*s but none with this falling within their charter AFAIK. > > > >> that would (attempt to) relay only Quizzic-compliant messages. >> >> > >might as well leave SMTP out of it. connect to a port, enter a >recipient address, > Whatever is easier to implement and use. A web form would work too. But I think SMTP is probably best. For example, say you want to test a system that scans for spam on the way OUT. You'd set your client's (outoging) smtp server to QuizzicServer.MIT.edu or whatever. If there's an SMTP proxy run by your system or ISP, this gives it a chance to be shown to work. I also think it's simplest to implement with existing software. >and the server will connect to the MX of the source >IP. (make sure the reverse and forward lookup match.) > Can you explain this more? I'm not clear on what you're trying to do here or why. Is this test something that would make Quizzic hard for joe user to use? I guess if we're sticking with SMTP, if joe user's SMTP server doesn't have matching lookups, tough-a lot of servers are rejecting his mail; (this is the least of his problems, and the shortcoming might help joe user become aware of it), but if he's suposed to telnet from his windoze PC, expecting matching lookups is a bit unreasonable. > the message >will be fixed, and therefore not attractive to abuse by spammers. > I'm trying to allow flexibility that may be useful while still not making it attractive to spammers. At least, I'd like to have the email address of the (purported) sender be available. The source IP would be in the mail header; SpamCop and workalikes would be configured to trust the system and consider the source IP as the source of spam, and, by default at least, not report Quizzic reports as spam at all. >rate limiting per source IP (no more than 10 messages a day?) will >stop the people trying to use it to DOS. > Rate limiting makes sense. > > > >> Sounds like the effort is still needed and the need is there. >> >> > >it seems to me that asrg is the proper forum, though. > The noise is deafening and the (admittedly oft-ignored) charter - http://www.irtf.org/asrg/ doesn't seem to admit this topic, so I'm reluctant to go there. Anyone else want/not want the discussion here? From owner-ietf-mta-filters Thu Jul 3 14:49:51 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h63Lnpqt023439 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:49:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h63LnofN023438 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:49:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from pat.uio.no (IDENT:7411@pat.uio.no [129.240.130.16]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h63Lnmqt023431 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:49:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kjetilho@ifi.uio.no) Received: from mail-mx3.uio.no ([129.240.10.44]) by pat.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #7) id 19YBxa-0001UI-00 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 23:49:46 +0200 Received: from [129.240.130.16] (helo=pat.uio.no) by mail-mx3.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 19YBxZ-0004cG-3m for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 23:49:45 +0200 Received: from glesvat.ifi.uio.no ([129.240.64.22]) by pat.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #7) id 19YBxY-0001Tw-00 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 23:49:44 +0200 Received: (from kjetilho@localhost) by glesvat.ifi.uio.no ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 23:49:44 +0200 (MEST) To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: GTUBE/Re: Quizzic: Spam equivalent to EICAR test virus proposal. References: <3F00B4CD.5090903@elvey.fastmail.fm> <1030702035041.ZM897@candle.brasslantern.com> <3F02F843.2040805@elvey.fastmail.fm> <1rr8577n0r.fsf@glesvat.ifi.uio.no> <3F046E36.90004@elvey.fastmail.fm> From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 23:49:44 +0200 In-Reply-To: <3F046E36.90004@elvey.fastmail.fm> Message-ID: <1rwuezuvpj.fsf@glesvat.ifi.uio.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/20.7 (usg-unix-v) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-MailScanner-Information: This message has been scanned for viruses/spam. Contact postmaster@uio.no if you have questions about this scanning. X-UiO-MailScanner: No virus found Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: [Matthew Elvey (FM)]: > > Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote: > > > might as well leave SMTP out of it. connect to a port, enter a > > recipient address, > > Whatever is easier to implement and use. A web form would work too. > > But I think SMTP is probably best. I'm just worried about the service being abused by spammers. > For example, say you want to test a system that scans for spam on > the way OUT. interesting point. > You'd set your client's (outoging) smtp server to > QuizzicServer.MIT.edu or whatever. If there's an SMTP proxy run > by your system or ISP, this gives it a chance to be shown to work. running transparent SMTP proxies is not very common, is it? in any case, you could use _any_ other e-mail address on the Internet to test outbound. > I also think it's simplest to implement with existing software. this is where I disagree strongly :-) > > and the server will connect to the MX of the source IP. (make > > sure the reverse and forward lookup match.) > > Can you explain this more? I'm not clear on what you're trying to do > here or why. say I connect from 129.240.68.200. reverse lookup gives vingodur.ifi.uio.no. the MX for vingodur is pat.uio.no. so the reply will be sent to pat. since pat is relay proof, I must provide a valid address at the University of Oslo for the e-mail to be accepted. now, if I want to fool the quizzic server into harrassing you, I'd change the reverse lookup of 129.240.68.200 to elvey.fastmail.fm, whose MX is smtp.us.messagingengine.com, and so you'll receive the message. it is therefore essential that a forward lookup of elvey.fastmail.fm is done to see if the IP address(es) match. > Is this test something that would make Quizzic hard for > joe user to use? only if Joe User's network administrator is incompetent. :-) -- Kjetil T. | read and make up your own mind | http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html From owner-ietf-mta-filters Fri Jul 4 04:21:34 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h64BLYqt084402 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 04:21:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h64BLYXg084401 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 04:21:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from pat.uio.no (IDENT:7411@pat.uio.no [129.240.130.16]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h64BLVqt084395 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 04:21:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kjetilho@ifi.uio.no) Received: from mail-mx2.uio.no ([129.240.10.30]) by pat.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #7) id 19Y6BG-0006Ou-00; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:39:30 +0200 Received: from [129.240.130.16] (helo=pat.uio.no) by mail-mx2.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 19Y6BE-00017u-OJ; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 17:39:28 +0200 Received: from glesvat.ifi.uio.no ([129.240.64.22]) by pat.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #7) id 19Y6BE-0006Om-00; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:39:28 +0200 Received: (from kjetilho@localhost) by glesvat.ifi.uio.no ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:39:28 +0200 (MEST) To: "hm" Cc: Subject: Re: changing the address from a redirect of sieve References: <01ea01c3382a$faac17b0$dc01a8c0@NOTE> From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 17:39:27 +0200 In-Reply-To: <01ea01c3382a$faac17b0$dc01a8c0@NOTE> Message-ID: <1ry8zfwrf4.fsf@glesvat.ifi.uio.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/20.7 (usg-unix-v) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-MailScanner-Information: This message has been scanned for viruses/spam. Contact postmaster@uio.no if you have questions about this scanning. X-UiO-MailScanner: No virus found Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: [hm]: > > I like to know howto change the address when I redirect an email, > of course the sender email address is like cyrus@host; but I want > to have myname@specialhost it's not clear what you want to do, so I'll guess. Sieve can't currently change the content of an e-mail, so you can only change the envelope address for the recipient. Jutta Degener has however written a draft for an extension to do so. -- Kjetil T. | read and make up your own mind | http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html From owner-ietf-mta-filters Sat Jul 5 05:57:40 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h65Cveqt081904 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 05:57:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h65CvejM081903 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 05:57:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.185]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h65Cvbqt081897 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 05:57:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wysiwyh@web.de) Received: from [212.227.126.206] (helo=mrelayng.kundenserver.de) by moutng.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 19Ymbh-0002ZO-00 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 14:57:37 +0200 Received: from [217.88.180.51] (helo=NOTE) by mrelayng.kundenserver.de with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 19Ymbg-0003pQ-00 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 14:57:36 +0200 Message-ID: <003f01c342f5$55da3390$dc01a8c0@NOTE> From: "hm" To: Subject: Protocol GRE(47)-packets are blocked from outside Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 14:59:55 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003C_01C34306.1849F270" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01C34306.1849F270 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I've the problem, that my configuration did block the GRE protocol when I try to connect to a pptp server from my net (the returning packets). I've sniffed and I saw that icmp-packets with protocol unreachable went back to the server. The same thing for protocol icmp did work. I'm using also the modules from netfilter for pptp and gre, but also without them the problem occurs... I have my configuration attached...thanx ahead... Flushing all current rules: - OK Removing user defined chains: - OK Changing target policies to DROP: - OK Allowing 192.168.1.0/24 traffic out: - OK Allowing 192.168.7.0/24 traffic out: - OK Allowing 217.88.183.59/32 traffic out: - OK Allowing response traffic: - OK Allowing localhost communications: - OK Allowing connections to udp port 4672: - OK Allowing connections to tcp port 22: - OK Allowing connections to tcp port 80: - OK Allowing connections to tcp port 443: - OK Allowing connections to tcp port 4662: - OK Allowing connections to tcp port 1720: - OK Allowing connections to tcp port 1723: - OK Forwarding 217.88.183.59(4662) to 192.168.1.3(4662): - OK Forwarding 217.88.183.59(4672) to 192.168.1.3(4672): - OK Forwarding 217.88.183.59(1720) to 192.168.1.2(1720): - OK Masq'ing 192.168.1.0/24: - OK Masq'ing 192.168.7.0/24: - OK Masq'ing 217.88.183.59/32: - OK Allowing Gateway out eth1 - OK Allowing Gateway to connect to self - OK Allowing protocol 1 connections from 0/0: - OK Allowing protocol 47 connections from 0/0: - OK Enabling dropped packet logging: - OK ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01C34306.1849F270 Content-Type: text/plain; name="out.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="out.txt" ext.IP: 217.88.183.59=0A= Table: filter=0A= Chain INPUT (policy DROP 1 packets, 40 bytes)=0A= pkts bytes target prot opt in out source = destination =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT 47 -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT icmp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 150 9371 ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 127.0.0.1 = 127.0.0.1 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 udp dpt:4672 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:22 =0A= 1 40 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:80 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:443 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:4662 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:1720 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:1723 =0A= 9 1144 ACCEPT all -- eth0 * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- lo * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- tun0 * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 LOG all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 LOG flags 0 level 6 prefix `FW: Filter-INPUT ' =0A= =0A= Chain FORWARD (policy DROP 0 packets, 0 bytes)=0A= pkts bytes target prot opt in out source = destination =0A= 38 2449 ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 217.88.183.59 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 192.168.7.0/24 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 7 318 ACCEPT all -- * * 192.168.1.0/24 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 192.168.1.2 udp dpt:1720 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 192.168.1.2 tcp dpt:1720 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 192.168.1.3 udp dpt:4672 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 192.168.1.3 tcp dpt:4672 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 192.168.1.3 udp dpt:4662 =0A= 2 96 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 192.168.1.3 tcp dpt:4662 =0A= 0 0 LOG all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 LOG flags 0 level 6 prefix `FW: Filter-FORWARD ' =0A= =0A= Chain OUTPUT (policy DROP 0 packets, 0 bytes)=0A= pkts bytes target prot opt in out source = destination =0A= 146 20021 ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED =0A= 3 622 ACCEPT all -- * * 192.168.1.0/24 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 192.168.7.0/24 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 49 2712 ACCEPT all -- * * 217.88.183.59 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 127.0.0.1 = 127.0.0.1 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * eth1 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * lo 217.88.183.59 = 217.88.183.59 =0A= 0 0 LOG all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 LOG flags 0 level 6 prefix `FW: Filter-OUTPUT ' =0A= =0A= Table: nat=0A= Chain PREROUTING (policy DROP 0 packets, 0 bytes)=0A= pkts bytes target prot opt in out source = destination =0A= 13 1238 block_nat all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT 47 -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT icmp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 DNAT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 217.88.183.59 udp dpt:1720 to:192.168.1.2:1720 =0A= 0 0 DNAT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 217.88.183.59 tcp dpt:1720 to:192.168.1.2:1720 =0A= 0 0 DNAT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 217.88.183.59 udp dpt:4672 to:192.168.1.3:4672 =0A= 0 0 DNAT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 217.88.183.59 tcp dpt:4672 to:192.168.1.3:4672 =0A= 0 0 DNAT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 217.88.183.59 udp dpt:4662 to:192.168.1.3:4662 =0A= 2 96 DNAT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 217.88.183.59 tcp dpt:4662 to:192.168.1.3:4662 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 udp dpt:4672 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:22 =0A= 1 40 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:80 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:443 =0A= 2 96 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:4662 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:1720 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:1723 =0A= 8 1006 ACCEPT all -- * * 192.168.1.0/24 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 192.168.7.0/24 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 217.88.183.59 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- eth0 * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- lo * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- tun0 * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 LOG all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 LOG flags 0 level 6 prefix `FW: Nat-PREROUTING ' =0A= =0A= Chain POSTROUTING (policy DROP 48 packets, 2640 bytes)=0A= pkts bytes target prot opt in out source = destination =0A= 0 0 SNAT udp -- * * 217.88.183.59 = 192.168.1.2 udp dpt:1720 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT tcp -- * * 217.88.183.59 = 192.168.1.2 tcp dpt:1720 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT udp -- * * 192.168.7.0/24 = 192.168.1.2 udp dpt:1720 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT tcp -- * * 192.168.7.0/24 = 192.168.1.2 tcp dpt:1720 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT udp -- * * 192.168.1.0/24 = 192.168.1.2 udp dpt:1720 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT tcp -- * * 192.168.1.0/24 = 192.168.1.2 tcp dpt:1720 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 192.168.1.2 udp dpt:1720 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 192.168.1.2 tcp dpt:1720 =0A= 0 0 SNAT udp -- * * 217.88.183.59 = 192.168.1.3 udp dpt:4672 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT tcp -- * * 217.88.183.59 = 192.168.1.3 tcp dpt:4672 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT udp -- * * 192.168.7.0/24 = 192.168.1.3 udp dpt:4672 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT tcp -- * * 192.168.7.0/24 = 192.168.1.3 tcp dpt:4672 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT udp -- * * 192.168.1.0/24 = 192.168.1.3 udp dpt:4672 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT tcp -- * * 192.168.1.0/24 = 192.168.1.3 tcp dpt:4672 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 192.168.1.3 udp dpt:4672 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 192.168.1.3 tcp dpt:4672 =0A= 0 0 SNAT udp -- * * 217.88.183.59 = 192.168.1.3 udp dpt:4662 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT tcp -- * * 217.88.183.59 = 192.168.1.3 tcp dpt:4662 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT udp -- * * 192.168.7.0/24 = 192.168.1.3 udp dpt:4662 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT tcp -- * * 192.168.7.0/24 = 192.168.1.3 tcp dpt:4662 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT udp -- * * 192.168.1.0/24 = 192.168.1.3 udp dpt:4662 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT tcp -- * * 192.168.1.0/24 = 192.168.1.3 tcp dpt:4662 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 192.168.1.3 udp dpt:4662 =0A= 2 96 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 192.168.1.3 tcp dpt:4662 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 127.0.0.1 = 127.0.0.1 =0A= 5 270 MASQUERADE all -- * * 192.168.1.0/24 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 MASQUERADE all -- * * 192.168.7.0/24 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 1 72 MASQUERADE all -- * * 217.88.183.59 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * eth1 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * lo 217.88.183.59 = 217.88.183.59 =0A= 0 0 LOG all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 LOG flags 0 level 6 prefix `FW: Nat-POSTROUTING ' =0A= =0A= Chain OUTPUT (policy DROP 0 packets, 0 bytes)=0A= pkts bytes target prot opt in out source = destination =0A= 1 78 ACCEPT all -- * * 192.168.1.0/24 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 192.168.7.0/24 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 49 2712 ACCEPT all -- * * 217.88.183.59 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 127.0.0.1 = 127.0.0.1 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * eth1 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * lo 217.88.183.59 = 217.88.183.59 =0A= 0 0 LOG all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 LOG flags 0 level 6 prefix `FW: Nat-OUTPUT ' =0A= =0A= Chain block_nat (1 references)=0A= pkts bytes target prot opt in out source = destination =0A= =0A= Table: mangle=0A= Chain PREROUTING (policy DROP 3 packets, 190 bytes)=0A= pkts bytes target prot opt in out source = destination =0A= 186 12648 block_mangle all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT 47 -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT icmp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 217.88.183.59 udp dpt:1720 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 217.88.183.59 tcp dpt:1720 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 217.88.183.59 udp dpt:4672 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 217.88.183.59 tcp dpt:4672 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 217.88.183.59 udp dpt:4662 =0A= 2 96 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 217.88.183.59 tcp dpt:4662 =0A= 188 11820 ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED =0A= 18 1542 ACCEPT all -- * * 192.168.1.0/24 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 192.168.7.0/24 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 217.88.183.59 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 127.0.0.1 = 127.0.0.1 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 udp dpt:4672 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:22 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:80 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:443 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:4662 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:1720 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:1723 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- eth0 * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- lo * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- tun0 * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 3 190 LOG all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 LOG flags 0 level 6 prefix `FW: Mangle-PREROUTING ' =0A= =0A= Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 161 packets, 10595 bytes)=0A= pkts bytes target prot opt in out source = destination =0A= =0A= Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 47 packets, 2863 bytes)=0A= pkts bytes target prot opt in out source = destination =0A= =0A= Chain OUTPUT (policy DROP 1 packets, 408 bytes)=0A= pkts bytes target prot opt in out source = destination =0A= 146 20021 ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED =0A= 3 622 ACCEPT all -- * * 192.168.1.0/24 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 192.168.7.0/24 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 49 2712 ACCEPT all -- * * 217.88.183.59 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 127.0.0.1 = 127.0.0.1 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * eth1 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * lo 217.88.183.59 = 217.88.183.59 =0A= 0 0 LOG all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 LOG flags 0 level 6 prefix `FW: Mangle-OUTPUT ' =0A= =0A= Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT 246 packets, 26296 bytes)=0A= pkts bytes target prot opt in out source = destination =0A= =0A= Chain block_mangle (1 references)=0A= pkts bytes target prot opt in out source = destination =0A= =0A= ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01C34306.1849F270-- From owner-ietf-mta-filters Fri Jul 18 07:42:38 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6IEgcqt003500 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 07:42:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h6IEgcZL003499 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 07:42:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from apollo.intra.ws.tn.tudelft.nl (duttwtm.ws.tn.tudelft.nl [130.161.188.212]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6IEgZqt003492 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 07:42:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from werner@ws.tn.tudelft.nl) Received: from duttwti.intra.ws.tn.tudelft.nl (duttwti.intra.ws.tn.tudelft.nl [172.16.2.99]) by apollo.intra.ws.tn.tudelft.nl (8.12.7/8.11.3/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with ESMTP id h6IEgXlN003769 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:42:33 +0200 From: Werner =?iso-8859-1?q?H=FCbner?= Organization: TU Delft To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Cyrus does not apply sieve script Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:42:32 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200307181642.32390.werner@ws.tn.tudelft.nl> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS - amavis-milter (http://www.amavis.org/) Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: I just copied the sieve scriped from a colleque to get some filters for my incoming email. While the script works fine for my colleque it does not for me. To test I sent an email to both of us. His copy was move to a subfolder of INBOX as intended, but not mine. Has anybody an idea what's going wrong here? Of course we already checked the rights if the files and the email folders! Everything is excatly the same. Thanks for your help, Werner From owner-ietf-mta-filters Sat Jul 19 11:31:29 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6JIVTqt007409 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:31:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h6JIVTdm007408 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:31:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.188]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6JIVRqt007403 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:31:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from m.friedrich@t-o-c.biz) Received: from [212.227.126.160] (helo=mrelayng.kundenserver.de) by moutng.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 19dwUT-0003vH-00 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:31:29 +0200 Received: from [80.128.230.159] (helo=onyxxp) by mrelayng.kundenserver.de with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 19dwUS-00009T-00 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:31:28 +0200 From: "Manfred Friedrich" To: Subject: /postfix/sieve configuration Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:31:28 +0200 Message-ID: <002501c34e23$f834af10$0b01a8c0@onyxxp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <001901c34e07$56617130$0b01a8c0@onyxxp> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id h6JIVSqt007404 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Hi, At firs I hope this is not the wrong mailing list :-{ So postfix is installed and works proper. But sieve does not work! I checkt with 'telnet localhost sieve' to connect. I take a look to the /var/log/message an found the following entrys: --- Jul 19 20:17:59 onyx-02 master[3362]: about to exec /usr/lib/cyrus/bin/timsieved Jul 19 20:18:00 onyx-02 sieve[3362]: executed Jul 19 20:18:00 onyx-02 sieve[3362]: accepted connection Jul 19 20:18:00 onyx-02 timsieved[3362]: can't use home directories --- Ok I think thats looks fine. The $home hase this .sieve file: --- require "fileinto"; require "reject"; require "vacation"; require "regex"; if header :contains "Subject" "test" { reject "thaks for test"; } --- Bdw: -the 'imapd.conf' has the propertie 'sieveusehomedir: true' -there is no $home/.forward fetchmail catches the mails - I take a look to the /var/log/message: --- Jul 19 22:21:12 onyx-02 master[3588]: about to exec /usr/lib/cyrus/bin/lmtpd Jul 19 22:21:12 onyx-02 lmtpunix[3588]: executed Jul 19 22:21:12 onyx-02 lmtpd[3588]: accepted connection Jul 19 22:21:12 onyx-02 lmtpd[3588]: lmtp connection preauth'd as postman Jul 19 22:21:12 onyx-02 lmtpd[3588]: duplicate_check: <002201c34e21$126126f0$0b01a8c0@onyxxp> user.root 0 Jul 19 22:21:12 onyx-02 lmtpd[3588]: mystore: starting txn 2147483665 Jul 19 22:21:12 onyx-02 lmtpd[3588]: mystore: committing txn 2147483665 Jul 19 22:21:12 onyx-02 lmtpd[3588]: duplicate_mark: <002201c34e21$126126f0$0b01a8c0@onyxxp> user.root --- Nothing happend there is no sieve action? Whats wrong? So long ... Manfred > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Manfred Friedrich [mailto:m.friedrich@t-o-c.biz] > Gesendet: Samstag, 19. Juli 2003 17:07 > An: suse-linux@suse.com > Betreff: AW: /postfix/sieve > > > Hmmmm, > > Soweit danke! > Laut yast ist das packet installiert. > > Tip wie's weitergeht - Habe keine gesch. doku gefunden? > > gruss > > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: Roland Harke [mailto:Roland.Harke@gmx.de] > > Gesendet: Samstag, 19. Juli 2003 15:37 > > An: suse-linux@suse.com > > Betreff: Re: /postfix/sieve > > > > > > > > pin sieve > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *** no rpm named sieve installed > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > maybe just a typo? what about this: > > > > perl-Cyrus-SIEVE-managesieve-2.1.12-29 > > > > maybe better restart with another option? grepping anyway ... > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *** zgrep sieve /var/lib/pin/ARCHIVES.gz > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > ---> ./CD3/suse/i586/perl-Cyrus-SIEVE-managesieve-2.1.12-29.i586.rpm > > > > > > mit Yast2 installieren ... > > > > MfG, Roland > > > > Am Samstag, 19. Juli 2003 14:44 schrieb Manfred Friedrich: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Suse 8.2 > > > > > > Cyrus/postfix ist eingerichtet und läuft. Nun möchte ich unter > > > zurhilfenahme von sieve mails filtern. Allerdings scheint > sieve in > > > eure distribution nicht enthalten zu sein?! > > > > > > Was muss ich tun um sieve zu aktivieren bzw. zu > installieren o. ä. ? > > > > > > Danke im vorraus! > > > > > > > > > Manfred > > > > -- > > Roland.Harke@gmx.de > > > > > > -- > > Um die Liste abzubestellen, schicken Sie eine Mail an: > > suse-linux-unsubscribe@suse.com > > Um eine Liste aller verfuegbaren Kommandos zu bekommen, > > schicken Sie eine Mail an: suse-linux-help@suse.com > > > > > -- > Um die Liste abzubestellen, schicken Sie eine Mail an: > suse-linux-unsubscribe@suse.com > Um eine Liste aller verfuegbaren Kommandos zu bekommen, schicken > Sie eine Mail an: suse-linux-help@suse.com > Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6JIVTqt007409 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:31:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h6JIVTdm007408 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:31:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.188]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6JIVRqt007403 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:31:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from m.friedrich@t-o-c.biz) Received: from [212.227.126.160] (helo=mrelayng.kundenserver.de) by moutng.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 19dwUT-0003vH-00 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:31:29 +0200 Received: from [80.128.230.159] (helo=onyxxp) by mrelayng.kundenserver.de with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 19dwUS-00009T-00 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:31:28 +0200 From: "Manfred Friedrich" To: Subject: /postfix/sieve configuration Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:31:28 +0200 Message-ID: <002501c34e23$f834af10$0b01a8c0@onyxxp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <001901c34e07$56617130$0b01a8c0@onyxxp> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id h6JIVSqt007404 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Hi, At firs I hope this is not the wrong mailing list :-{ So postfix is installed and works proper. But sieve does not work! I checkt with 'telnet localhost sieve' to connect. I take a look to the /var/log/message an found the following entrys: --- Jul 19 20:17:59 onyx-02 master[3362]: about to exec /usr/lib/cyrus/bin/timsieved Jul 19 20:18:00 onyx-02 sieve[3362]: executed Jul 19 20:18:00 onyx-02 sieve[3362]: accepted connection Jul 19 20:18:00 onyx-02 timsieved[3362]: can't use home directories --- Ok I think thats looks fine. The $home hase this .sieve file: --- require "fileinto"; require "reject"; require "vacation"; require "regex"; if header :contains "Subject" "test" { reject "thaks for test"; } --- Bdw: -the 'imapd.conf' has the propertie 'sieveusehomedir: true' -there is no $home/.forward fetchmail catches the mails - I take a look to the /var/log/message: --- Jul 19 22:21:12 onyx-02 master[3588]: about to exec /usr/lib/cyrus/bin/lmtpd Jul 19 22:21:12 onyx-02 lmtpunix[3588]: executed Jul 19 22:21:12 onyx-02 lmtpd[3588]: accepted connection Jul 19 22:21:12 onyx-02 lmtpd[3588]: lmtp connection preauth'd as postman Jul 19 22:21:12 onyx-02 lmtpd[3588]: duplicate_check: <002201c34e21$126126f0$0b01a8c0@onyxxp> user.root 0 Jul 19 22:21:12 onyx-02 lmtpd[3588]: mystore: starting txn 2147483665 Jul 19 22:21:12 onyx-02 lmtpd[3588]: mystore: committing txn 2147483665 Jul 19 22:21:12 onyx-02 lmtpd[3588]: duplicate_mark: <002201c34e21$126126f0$0b01a8c0@onyxxp> user.root --- Nothing happend there is no sieve action? Whats wrong? So long ... Manfred > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Manfred Friedrich [mailto:m.friedrich@t-o-c.biz] > Gesendet: Samstag, 19. Juli 2003 17:07 > An: suse-linux@suse.com > Betreff: AW: /postfix/sieve > > > Hmmmm, > > Soweit danke! > Laut yast ist das packet installiert. > > Tip wie's weitergeht - Habe keine gesch. doku gefunden? > > gruss > > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: Roland Harke [mailto:Roland.Harke@gmx.de] > > Gesendet: Samstag, 19. Juli 2003 15:37 > > An: suse-linux@suse.com > > Betreff: Re: /postfix/sieve > > > > > > > > pin sieve > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *** no rpm named sieve installed > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > maybe just a typo? what about this: > > > > perl-Cyrus-SIEVE-managesieve-2.1.12-29 > > > > maybe better restart with another option? grepping anyway ... > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *** zgrep sieve /var/lib/pin/ARCHIVES.gz > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > ---> ./CD3/suse/i586/perl-Cyrus-SIEVE-managesieve-2.1.12-29.i586.rpm > > > > > > mit Yast2 installieren ... > > > > MfG, Roland > > > > Am Samstag, 19. Juli 2003 14:44 schrieb Manfred Friedrich: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Suse 8.2 > > > > > > Cyrus/postfix ist eingerichtet und läuft. Nun möchte ich unter > > > zurhilfenahme von sieve mails filtern. Allerdings scheint > sieve in > > > eure distribution nicht enthalten zu sein?! > > > > > > Was muss ich tun um sieve zu aktivieren bzw. zu > installieren o. ä. ? > > > > > > Danke im vorraus! > > > > > > > > > Manfred > > > > -- > > Roland.Harke@gmx.de > > > > > > -- > > Um die Liste abzubestellen, schicken Sie eine Mail an: > > suse-linux-unsubscribe@suse.com > > Um eine Liste aller verfuegbaren Kommandos zu bekommen, > > schicken Sie eine Mail an: suse-linux-help@suse.com > > > > > -- > Um die Liste abzubestellen, schicken Sie eine Mail an: > suse-linux-unsubscribe@suse.com > Um eine Liste aller verfuegbaren Kommandos zu bekommen, schicken > Sie eine Mail an: suse-linux-help@suse.com > Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6IEgcqt003500 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 07:42:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h6IEgcZL003499 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 07:42:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from apollo.intra.ws.tn.tudelft.nl (duttwtm.ws.tn.tudelft.nl [130.161.188.212]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6IEgZqt003492 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 07:42:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from werner@ws.tn.tudelft.nl) Received: from duttwti.intra.ws.tn.tudelft.nl (duttwti.intra.ws.tn.tudelft.nl [172.16.2.99]) by apollo.intra.ws.tn.tudelft.nl (8.12.7/8.11.3/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with ESMTP id h6IEgXlN003769 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:42:33 +0200 From: Werner =?iso-8859-1?q?H=FCbner?= Organization: TU Delft To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Cyrus does not apply sieve script Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:42:32 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200307181642.32390.werner@ws.tn.tudelft.nl> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS - amavis-milter (http://www.amavis.org/) Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: I just copied the sieve scriped from a colleque to get some filters for my incoming email. While the script works fine for my colleque it does not for me. To test I sent an email to both of us. His copy was move to a subfolder of INBOX as intended, but not mine. Has anybody an idea what's going wrong here? Of course we already checked the rights if the files and the email folders! Everything is excatly the same. Thanks for your help, Werner Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h65Cveqt081904 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 05:57:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h65CvejM081903 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 05:57:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.185]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h65Cvbqt081897 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 05:57:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wysiwyh@web.de) Received: from [212.227.126.206] (helo=mrelayng.kundenserver.de) by moutng.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 19Ymbh-0002ZO-00 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 14:57:37 +0200 Received: from [217.88.180.51] (helo=NOTE) by mrelayng.kundenserver.de with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 19Ymbg-0003pQ-00 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 14:57:36 +0200 Message-ID: <003f01c342f5$55da3390$dc01a8c0@NOTE> From: "hm" To: Subject: Protocol GRE(47)-packets are blocked from outside Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 14:59:55 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003C_01C34306.1849F270" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01C34306.1849F270 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I've the problem, that my configuration did block the GRE protocol when I try to connect to a pptp server from my net (the returning packets). I've sniffed and I saw that icmp-packets with protocol unreachable went back to the server. The same thing for protocol icmp did work. I'm using also the modules from netfilter for pptp and gre, but also without them the problem occurs... I have my configuration attached...thanx ahead... Flushing all current rules: - OK Removing user defined chains: - OK Changing target policies to DROP: - OK Allowing 192.168.1.0/24 traffic out: - OK Allowing 192.168.7.0/24 traffic out: - OK Allowing 217.88.183.59/32 traffic out: - OK Allowing response traffic: - OK Allowing localhost communications: - OK Allowing connections to udp port 4672: - OK Allowing connections to tcp port 22: - OK Allowing connections to tcp port 80: - OK Allowing connections to tcp port 443: - OK Allowing connections to tcp port 4662: - OK Allowing connections to tcp port 1720: - OK Allowing connections to tcp port 1723: - OK Forwarding 217.88.183.59(4662) to 192.168.1.3(4662): - OK Forwarding 217.88.183.59(4672) to 192.168.1.3(4672): - OK Forwarding 217.88.183.59(1720) to 192.168.1.2(1720): - OK Masq'ing 192.168.1.0/24: - OK Masq'ing 192.168.7.0/24: - OK Masq'ing 217.88.183.59/32: - OK Allowing Gateway out eth1 - OK Allowing Gateway to connect to self - OK Allowing protocol 1 connections from 0/0: - OK Allowing protocol 47 connections from 0/0: - OK Enabling dropped packet logging: - OK ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01C34306.1849F270 Content-Type: text/plain; name="out.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="out.txt" ext.IP: 217.88.183.59=0A= Table: filter=0A= Chain INPUT (policy DROP 1 packets, 40 bytes)=0A= pkts bytes target prot opt in out source = destination =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT 47 -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT icmp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 150 9371 ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 127.0.0.1 = 127.0.0.1 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 udp dpt:4672 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:22 =0A= 1 40 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:80 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:443 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:4662 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:1720 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:1723 =0A= 9 1144 ACCEPT all -- eth0 * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- lo * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- tun0 * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 LOG all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 LOG flags 0 level 6 prefix `FW: Filter-INPUT ' =0A= =0A= Chain FORWARD (policy DROP 0 packets, 0 bytes)=0A= pkts bytes target prot opt in out source = destination =0A= 38 2449 ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 217.88.183.59 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 192.168.7.0/24 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 7 318 ACCEPT all -- * * 192.168.1.0/24 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 192.168.1.2 udp dpt:1720 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 192.168.1.2 tcp dpt:1720 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 192.168.1.3 udp dpt:4672 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 192.168.1.3 tcp dpt:4672 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 192.168.1.3 udp dpt:4662 =0A= 2 96 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 192.168.1.3 tcp dpt:4662 =0A= 0 0 LOG all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 LOG flags 0 level 6 prefix `FW: Filter-FORWARD ' =0A= =0A= Chain OUTPUT (policy DROP 0 packets, 0 bytes)=0A= pkts bytes target prot opt in out source = destination =0A= 146 20021 ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED =0A= 3 622 ACCEPT all -- * * 192.168.1.0/24 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 192.168.7.0/24 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 49 2712 ACCEPT all -- * * 217.88.183.59 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 127.0.0.1 = 127.0.0.1 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * eth1 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * lo 217.88.183.59 = 217.88.183.59 =0A= 0 0 LOG all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 LOG flags 0 level 6 prefix `FW: Filter-OUTPUT ' =0A= =0A= Table: nat=0A= Chain PREROUTING (policy DROP 0 packets, 0 bytes)=0A= pkts bytes target prot opt in out source = destination =0A= 13 1238 block_nat all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT 47 -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT icmp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 DNAT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 217.88.183.59 udp dpt:1720 to:192.168.1.2:1720 =0A= 0 0 DNAT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 217.88.183.59 tcp dpt:1720 to:192.168.1.2:1720 =0A= 0 0 DNAT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 217.88.183.59 udp dpt:4672 to:192.168.1.3:4672 =0A= 0 0 DNAT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 217.88.183.59 tcp dpt:4672 to:192.168.1.3:4672 =0A= 0 0 DNAT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 217.88.183.59 udp dpt:4662 to:192.168.1.3:4662 =0A= 2 96 DNAT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 217.88.183.59 tcp dpt:4662 to:192.168.1.3:4662 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 udp dpt:4672 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:22 =0A= 1 40 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:80 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:443 =0A= 2 96 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:4662 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:1720 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:1723 =0A= 8 1006 ACCEPT all -- * * 192.168.1.0/24 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 192.168.7.0/24 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 217.88.183.59 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- eth0 * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- lo * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- tun0 * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 LOG all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 LOG flags 0 level 6 prefix `FW: Nat-PREROUTING ' =0A= =0A= Chain POSTROUTING (policy DROP 48 packets, 2640 bytes)=0A= pkts bytes target prot opt in out source = destination =0A= 0 0 SNAT udp -- * * 217.88.183.59 = 192.168.1.2 udp dpt:1720 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT tcp -- * * 217.88.183.59 = 192.168.1.2 tcp dpt:1720 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT udp -- * * 192.168.7.0/24 = 192.168.1.2 udp dpt:1720 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT tcp -- * * 192.168.7.0/24 = 192.168.1.2 tcp dpt:1720 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT udp -- * * 192.168.1.0/24 = 192.168.1.2 udp dpt:1720 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT tcp -- * * 192.168.1.0/24 = 192.168.1.2 tcp dpt:1720 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 192.168.1.2 udp dpt:1720 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 192.168.1.2 tcp dpt:1720 =0A= 0 0 SNAT udp -- * * 217.88.183.59 = 192.168.1.3 udp dpt:4672 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT tcp -- * * 217.88.183.59 = 192.168.1.3 tcp dpt:4672 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT udp -- * * 192.168.7.0/24 = 192.168.1.3 udp dpt:4672 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT tcp -- * * 192.168.7.0/24 = 192.168.1.3 tcp dpt:4672 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT udp -- * * 192.168.1.0/24 = 192.168.1.3 udp dpt:4672 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT tcp -- * * 192.168.1.0/24 = 192.168.1.3 tcp dpt:4672 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 192.168.1.3 udp dpt:4672 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 192.168.1.3 tcp dpt:4672 =0A= 0 0 SNAT udp -- * * 217.88.183.59 = 192.168.1.3 udp dpt:4662 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT tcp -- * * 217.88.183.59 = 192.168.1.3 tcp dpt:4662 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT udp -- * * 192.168.7.0/24 = 192.168.1.3 udp dpt:4662 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT tcp -- * * 192.168.7.0/24 = 192.168.1.3 tcp dpt:4662 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT udp -- * * 192.168.1.0/24 = 192.168.1.3 udp dpt:4662 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 SNAT tcp -- * * 192.168.1.0/24 = 192.168.1.3 tcp dpt:4662 to:192.168.1.1 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 192.168.1.3 udp dpt:4662 =0A= 2 96 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 192.168.1.3 tcp dpt:4662 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 127.0.0.1 = 127.0.0.1 =0A= 5 270 MASQUERADE all -- * * 192.168.1.0/24 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 MASQUERADE all -- * * 192.168.7.0/24 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 1 72 MASQUERADE all -- * * 217.88.183.59 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * eth1 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * lo 217.88.183.59 = 217.88.183.59 =0A= 0 0 LOG all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 LOG flags 0 level 6 prefix `FW: Nat-POSTROUTING ' =0A= =0A= Chain OUTPUT (policy DROP 0 packets, 0 bytes)=0A= pkts bytes target prot opt in out source = destination =0A= 1 78 ACCEPT all -- * * 192.168.1.0/24 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 192.168.7.0/24 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 49 2712 ACCEPT all -- * * 217.88.183.59 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 127.0.0.1 = 127.0.0.1 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * eth1 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * lo 217.88.183.59 = 217.88.183.59 =0A= 0 0 LOG all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 LOG flags 0 level 6 prefix `FW: Nat-OUTPUT ' =0A= =0A= Chain block_nat (1 references)=0A= pkts bytes target prot opt in out source = destination =0A= =0A= Table: mangle=0A= Chain PREROUTING (policy DROP 3 packets, 190 bytes)=0A= pkts bytes target prot opt in out source = destination =0A= 186 12648 block_mangle all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT 47 -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT icmp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 217.88.183.59 udp dpt:1720 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 217.88.183.59 tcp dpt:1720 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 217.88.183.59 udp dpt:4672 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 217.88.183.59 tcp dpt:4672 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 217.88.183.59 udp dpt:4662 =0A= 2 96 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 217.88.183.59 tcp dpt:4662 =0A= 188 11820 ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED =0A= 18 1542 ACCEPT all -- * * 192.168.1.0/24 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 192.168.7.0/24 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 217.88.183.59 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 127.0.0.1 = 127.0.0.1 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 udp dpt:4672 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:22 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:80 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:443 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:4662 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:1720 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:1723 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- eth0 * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- lo * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- tun0 * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 3 190 LOG all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 LOG flags 0 level 6 prefix `FW: Mangle-PREROUTING ' =0A= =0A= Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 161 packets, 10595 bytes)=0A= pkts bytes target prot opt in out source = destination =0A= =0A= Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 47 packets, 2863 bytes)=0A= pkts bytes target prot opt in out source = destination =0A= =0A= Chain OUTPUT (policy DROP 1 packets, 408 bytes)=0A= pkts bytes target prot opt in out source = destination =0A= 146 20021 ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED =0A= 3 622 ACCEPT all -- * * 192.168.1.0/24 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 192.168.7.0/24 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 49 2712 ACCEPT all -- * * 217.88.183.59 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 127.0.0.1 = 127.0.0.1 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * eth1 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 =0A= 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * lo 217.88.183.59 = 217.88.183.59 =0A= 0 0 LOG all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 = 0.0.0.0/0 LOG flags 0 level 6 prefix `FW: Mangle-OUTPUT ' =0A= =0A= Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT 246 packets, 26296 bytes)=0A= pkts bytes target prot opt in out source = destination =0A= =0A= Chain block_mangle (1 references)=0A= pkts bytes target prot opt in out source = destination =0A= =0A= ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01C34306.1849F270-- Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h64BLYqt084402 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 04:21:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h64BLYXg084401 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 04:21:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from pat.uio.no (IDENT:7411@pat.uio.no [129.240.130.16]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h64BLVqt084395 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 04:21:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kjetilho@ifi.uio.no) Received: from mail-mx2.uio.no ([129.240.10.30]) by pat.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #7) id 19Y6BG-0006Ou-00; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:39:30 +0200 Received: from [129.240.130.16] (helo=pat.uio.no) by mail-mx2.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 19Y6BE-00017u-OJ; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 17:39:28 +0200 Received: from glesvat.ifi.uio.no ([129.240.64.22]) by pat.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #7) id 19Y6BE-0006Om-00; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:39:28 +0200 Received: (from kjetilho@localhost) by glesvat.ifi.uio.no ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:39:28 +0200 (MEST) To: "hm" Cc: Subject: Re: changing the address from a redirect of sieve References: <01ea01c3382a$faac17b0$dc01a8c0@NOTE> From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 17:39:27 +0200 In-Reply-To: <01ea01c3382a$faac17b0$dc01a8c0@NOTE> Message-ID: <1ry8zfwrf4.fsf@glesvat.ifi.uio.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/20.7 (usg-unix-v) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-MailScanner-Information: This message has been scanned for viruses/spam. Contact postmaster@uio.no if you have questions about this scanning. X-UiO-MailScanner: No virus found Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: [hm]: > > I like to know howto change the address when I redirect an email, > of course the sender email address is like cyrus@host; but I want > to have myname@specialhost it's not clear what you want to do, so I'll guess. Sieve can't currently change the content of an e-mail, so you can only change the envelope address for the recipient. Jutta Degener has however written a draft for an extension to do so. -- Kjetil T. | read and make up your own mind | http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h63Lnpqt023439 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:49:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h63LnofN023438 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:49:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from pat.uio.no (IDENT:7411@pat.uio.no [129.240.130.16]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h63Lnmqt023431 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:49:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kjetilho@ifi.uio.no) Received: from mail-mx3.uio.no ([129.240.10.44]) by pat.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #7) id 19YBxa-0001UI-00 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 23:49:46 +0200 Received: from [129.240.130.16] (helo=pat.uio.no) by mail-mx3.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 19YBxZ-0004cG-3m for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 23:49:45 +0200 Received: from glesvat.ifi.uio.no ([129.240.64.22]) by pat.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #7) id 19YBxY-0001Tw-00 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 23:49:44 +0200 Received: (from kjetilho@localhost) by glesvat.ifi.uio.no ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 23:49:44 +0200 (MEST) To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: GTUBE/Re: Quizzic: Spam equivalent to EICAR test virus proposal. References: <3F00B4CD.5090903@elvey.fastmail.fm> <1030702035041.ZM897@candle.brasslantern.com> <3F02F843.2040805@elvey.fastmail.fm> <1rr8577n0r.fsf@glesvat.ifi.uio.no> <3F046E36.90004@elvey.fastmail.fm> From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 23:49:44 +0200 In-Reply-To: <3F046E36.90004@elvey.fastmail.fm> Message-ID: <1rwuezuvpj.fsf@glesvat.ifi.uio.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/20.7 (usg-unix-v) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-MailScanner-Information: This message has been scanned for viruses/spam. Contact postmaster@uio.no if you have questions about this scanning. X-UiO-MailScanner: No virus found Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: [Matthew Elvey (FM)]: > > Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote: > > > might as well leave SMTP out of it. connect to a port, enter a > > recipient address, > > Whatever is easier to implement and use. A web form would work too. > > But I think SMTP is probably best. I'm just worried about the service being abused by spammers. > For example, say you want to test a system that scans for spam on > the way OUT. interesting point. > You'd set your client's (outoging) smtp server to > QuizzicServer.MIT.edu or whatever. If there's an SMTP proxy run > by your system or ISP, this gives it a chance to be shown to work. running transparent SMTP proxies is not very common, is it? in any case, you could use _any_ other e-mail address on the Internet to test outbound. > I also think it's simplest to implement with existing software. this is where I disagree strongly :-) > > and the server will connect to the MX of the source IP. (make > > sure the reverse and forward lookup match.) > > Can you explain this more? I'm not clear on what you're trying to do > here or why. say I connect from 129.240.68.200. reverse lookup gives vingodur.ifi.uio.no. the MX for vingodur is pat.uio.no. so the reply will be sent to pat. since pat is relay proof, I must provide a valid address at the University of Oslo for the e-mail to be accepted. now, if I want to fool the quizzic server into harrassing you, I'd change the reverse lookup of 129.240.68.200 to elvey.fastmail.fm, whose MX is smtp.us.messagingengine.com, and so you'll receive the message. it is therefore essential that a forward lookup of elvey.fastmail.fm is done to see if the IP address(es) match. > Is this test something that would make Quizzic hard for > joe user to use? only if Joe User's network administrator is incompetent. :-) -- Kjetil T. | read and make up your own mind | http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h63HuIqt010055 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:56:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h63HuIGa010054 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:56:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.fastmail.fm (www.fastmail.fm [66.111.4.2] (may be forged)) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h63HuGqt010045 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:56:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from matthew@elvey.fastmail.fm) Received: from www.fastmail.fm (server1.internal [10.202.2.132]) by localhost.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DE482B77E; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:56:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 127.0.0.1 ([127.0.0.1] helo=www.fastmail.fm) by messagingengine.com with SMTP; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:56:13 -0400 X-Epoch: 1057254973 X-Sasl-enc: LI7iiRvOokmWDjzJrwJs+A Received: from elvey.fastmail.fm (adsl-66-126-168-113.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [66.126.168.113]) by www.fastmail.fm (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B0FA3097C; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:56:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F046E36.90004@elvey.fastmail.fm> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:56:06 -0700 From: "Matthew Elvey (FM)" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kjetil Torgrim Homme Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: GTUBE/Re: Quizzic: Spam equivalent to EICAR test virus proposal. References: <3F00B4CD.5090903@elvey.fastmail.fm> <1030702035041.ZM897@candle.brasslantern.com> <3F02F843.2040805@elvey.fastmail.fm> <1rr8577n0r.fsf@glesvat.ifi.uio.no> In-Reply-To: <1rr8577n0r.fsf@glesvat.ifi.uio.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote: >[Matthew Elvey (FM)]: > > >> Matt Sergeant of SpamAssassin posted very relevantly to the ASRG about >> GTUBE in March: >> https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01527.html+gtube >> Correction: (take off the +gtube - the URL stopped working with that) https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01527.html >> >> There were a couple replies that are meritless from Vernon >> Schryver and Kee Hinckley. A valid complaint was what about >> antispam systems that aren't content filters? >> >> > >that's a bit harsh on Vernon Schryver, his idea of setting up an >auto-responder from a fixed IP-address is exactly what you propose. > Great. I haven't seen him propose that. I guess I missed it. He's got lots of good ideas, just not on that thread, as far as I saw. Tact and collegiality were missing. My intent was to make others' reading of the thread go quicker by echoing what's said at https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01678.html - he seemed to have misunderstood the purpose. > > > >> Enhancement to my scheme to more fully address it: A pseudo-open >> relay could be established (run by who?) >> >> > >probably someone academic, for stability topologywise, and also for >IPv6 support. the problem is that willfully getting your host listed >in RBL is scary. you never know what people will jump to conclusions >and blacklist your entire B-net. (perhaps MIT could run it in its own >B-net ;-) > ICANN ISOC IESG IETF IANA... so many I*s but none with this falling within their charter AFAIK. > > > >> that would (attempt to) relay only Quizzic-compliant messages. >> >> > >might as well leave SMTP out of it. connect to a port, enter a >recipient address, > Whatever is easier to implement and use. A web form would work too. But I think SMTP is probably best. For example, say you want to test a system that scans for spam on the way OUT. You'd set your client's (outoging) smtp server to QuizzicServer.MIT.edu or whatever. If there's an SMTP proxy run by your system or ISP, this gives it a chance to be shown to work. I also think it's simplest to implement with existing software. >and the server will connect to the MX of the source >IP. (make sure the reverse and forward lookup match.) > Can you explain this more? I'm not clear on what you're trying to do here or why. Is this test something that would make Quizzic hard for joe user to use? I guess if we're sticking with SMTP, if joe user's SMTP server doesn't have matching lookups, tough-a lot of servers are rejecting his mail; (this is the least of his problems, and the shortcoming might help joe user become aware of it), but if he's suposed to telnet from his windoze PC, expecting matching lookups is a bit unreasonable. > the message >will be fixed, and therefore not attractive to abuse by spammers. > I'm trying to allow flexibility that may be useful while still not making it attractive to spammers. At least, I'd like to have the email address of the (purported) sender be available. The source IP would be in the mail header; SpamCop and workalikes would be configured to trust the system and consider the source IP as the source of spam, and, by default at least, not report Quizzic reports as spam at all. >rate limiting per source IP (no more than 10 messages a day?) will >stop the people trying to use it to DOS. > Rate limiting makes sense. > > > >> Sounds like the effort is still needed and the need is there. >> >> > >it seems to me that asrg is the proper forum, though. > The noise is deafening and the (admittedly oft-ignored) charter - http://www.irtf.org/asrg/ doesn't seem to admit this topic, so I'm reluctant to go there. Anyone else want/not want the discussion here? Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h63DXsFK058133 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 06:33:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h63DXst7058132 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 06:33:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from pat.uio.no (IDENT:7411@pat.uio.no [129.240.130.16]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h63DXnFK058124 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 06:33:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kjetilho@ifi.uio.no) Received: from mail-mx3.uio.no ([129.240.10.44]) by pat.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #7) id 19Y4Db-00035f-00; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:33:47 +0200 Received: from [129.240.130.16] (helo=pat.uio.no) by mail-mx3.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 19Y4DZ-0002Fs-NB; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:33:45 +0200 Received: from glesvat.ifi.uio.no ([129.240.64.22]) by pat.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #7) id 19Y4DZ-00035I-00; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:33:45 +0200 Received: (from kjetilho@localhost) by glesvat.ifi.uio.no ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:33:41 +0200 (MEST) To: "Matthew Elvey (FM)" Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: GTUBE/Re: Quizzic: Spam equivalent to EICAR test virus proposal. References: <3F00B4CD.5090903@elvey.fastmail.fm> <1030702035041.ZM897@candle.brasslantern.com> <3F02F843.2040805@elvey.fastmail.fm> From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:33:40 +0200 In-Reply-To: <3F02F843.2040805@elvey.fastmail.fm> Message-ID: <1rr8577n0r.fsf@glesvat.ifi.uio.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/20.7 (usg-unix-v) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-MailScanner-Information: This message has been scanned for viruses/spam. Contact postmaster@uio.no if you have questions about this scanning. X-UiO-MailScanner: No virus found Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: [Matthew Elvey (FM)]: > > Matt Sergeant of SpamAssassin posted very relevantly to the ASRG about > GTUBE in March: > https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01527.html+gtube > > There were a couple replies that are meritless from Vernon > Schryver and Kee Hinckley. A valid complaint was what about > antispam systems that aren't content filters? that's a bit harsh on Vernon Schryver, his idea of setting up an auto-responder from a fixed IP-address is exactly what you propose. > Enhancement to my scheme to more fully address it: A pseudo-open > relay could be established (run by who?) probably someone academic, for stability topologywise, and also for IPv6 support. the problem is that willfully getting your host listed in RBL is scary. you never know what people will jump to conclusions and blacklist your entire B-net. (perhaps MIT could run it in its own B-net ;-) > that would (attempt to) relay only Quizzic-compliant messages. might as well leave SMTP out of it. connect to a port, enter a recipient address, and the server will connect to the MX of the source IP. (make sure the reverse and forward lookup match.) the message will be fixed, and therefore not attractive to abuse by spammers. rate limiting per source IP (no more than 10 messages a day?) will stop the people trying to use it to DOS. > Sounds like the effort is still needed and the need is there. it seems to me that asrg is the proper forum, though. -- Kjetil T. | read and make up your own mind | http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h631otFK096930 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:50:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h631otYS096929 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:50:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rembrandt.esys.ca (rembrandt.esys.ca [198.161.92.131]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h631ooFK096918 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:50:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com) Received: from isode.com (1Cust22.tnt101.lnd4.gbr.da.uu.net [213.116.50.22]) (authenticated) by rembrandt.esys.ca (8.11.6/8.11.0.Beta0) with ESMTP id h631sPV31050; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:54:27 -0600 Message-ID: <3F035670.524FDD98@isode.com> Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:02:24 -0600 From: Alexey Melnikov Organization: Isode Limited X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nigel Swinson CC: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-melnikov-sieve-imapflags-05.txt References: <200307011122.HAA06936@ietf.org> <091601c3409b$6785db00$6501a8c0@nigelhome> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Nigel Swinson wrote: > 3.1. Addflag action > > - Duplicates are allowed and ignored? Do we need to specify that we just > ignore them, or should our "list" maintain both entries? I see in 4 and 6 > there is a note about this issue, but perhaps it would help to have a > comment in this section that "duplicate removal" is seen as optional. Actually I would like to give implementations freedom of choice. > 3.2 Removeflag Action > > - Example contains :globalflags , But :globalflags isn't defined anywhere in > the document. I remember it from the old revisions, did it get dropped? Yes. Fixed now. Thank you. > If so this example is now out of date... > > - If duplicate removal is "optional", then what happens if we have two > flags, and we are asked to removeflag that flag. We remove both > occurrences? Yes, that was my indent. > Would it perhaps just be easier to say that we MUST do > duplicate removal during addflags? Both removal of existing duplicates > before we add the new flags, and any new duplicates created after adding the > flags? > > - Don't understand what "Multiple occurrences of removeflag are treated > additively." means. Does that mean multiple removeflag actions are treated > additively, or does it refer to the content of the flags and answer my > previous question about when multiple flags exist with the same name? The former. I've changed the text a bit to make it more clear. > 10. Extended Example > > - Extended example contains a few "add" actions that I think should be > "addflags". Correct. > - Suggest that you don't use a variable name of "flags" in the example, as > it may confuse. Maybe "MyFlags" or something might be safer? Sure. Alexey __________________________________________ Home Page: http://orthanc.ab.ca/mel IETF standard related pages: http://orthanc.ab.ca/mel/devel/Links.html __________________________________________ Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h62FKgFK063195 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:20:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h62FKgUs063193 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:20:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.fastmail.fm (www.fastmail.fm [66.111.4.2] (may be forged)) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h62FKfFK063179 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:20:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from matthew@elvey.fastmail.fm) Received: from www.fastmail.fm (server1.internal [10.202.2.132]) by localhost.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29EB3393A8 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:20:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 127.0.0.1 ([127.0.0.1] helo=www.fastmail.fm) by messagingengine.com with SMTP; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:20:38 -0400 X-Epoch: 1057159238 X-Sasl-enc: FqMmNUzlP6G41Qcza3WaNw Received: from elvey.fastmail.fm (adsl-63-195-86-147.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.195.86.147]) by www.fastmail.fm (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42156CCE8 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:20:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F02F843.2040805@elvey.fastmail.fm> Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:20:35 -0700 From: "Matthew Elvey (FM)" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: GTUBE/Re: Quizzic: Spam equivalent to EICAR test virus proposal. References: <3F00B4CD.5090903@elvey.fastmail.fm> <1030702035041.ZM897@candle.brasslantern.com> In-Reply-To: <1030702035041.ZM897@candle.brasslantern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Bart Schaefer wrote: >Just for comparison: > >SpamAssassin defines what's called the Generic Test for Unsolicited Bulk >Email (GTUBE). It's defined as a string matching the regular expression > >XJS\*C4JDBQADN1\.NSBN3\*2IDNEN\*GTUBE-STANDARD-ANTI-UBE-TEST-EMAIL\*C\.34X > >appearing anywhere in the message body, after decoding and HTML rendering. > >(I write the regular expression rather than the string itself so that any >of you running spamassassin won't score this message at 1000 points.) > > > Thanks! So a start has been made. http://spamassassin.planetmirror.com/dist/t/data/spam/gtube.eml - a sample. Matt Sergeant of SpamAssassin posted very relevantly to the ASRG about GTUBE in March: https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01527.html+gtube There were a couple replies that are meritless from Vernon Schryver and Kee Hinckley A valid complaint was what about antispam systems that aren't content filters? Enhancement to my scheme to more fully address it: A pseudo-open relay could be established (run by who?) that would (attempt to) relay only Quizzic-compliant messages. It would be listed in all blacklists. The From would be specified to be that of a specified domain, which would go in all domain-based blacklists. (anything@ADVQZWK.com, as previously suggested). It would not 2xx OK the SMTP DATA command, but rather send a 4xx/5xx error (the same one it encountered) if the attempt to relay failed. Matt posted this helpful reply: https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01625.html not realizing that there was a solution to his item 1 w/o spoofing. Sounds like the effort is still needed and the need is there. Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h62DVvFK056759 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 06:31:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h62DVva6056758 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 06:31:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from starship.enterprise.ucs.ed.ac.uk (starship.enterprise.ucs.ed.ac.uk [129.215.40.70]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h62DVoFK056750 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 06:31:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Nigel@swinson.com) Received: from nigelhome (unverified [80.195.14.206]) by starship.enterprise.ucs.ed.ac.uk (Rockliffe SMTPRA 5.3.3) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:10:12 +0100 Message-ID: <091601c3409b$6785db00$6501a8c0@nigelhome> From: "Nigel Swinson" To: Cc: References: <200307011122.HAA06936@ietf.org> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-melnikov-sieve-imapflags-05.txt Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:11:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: 3.1. Addflag action - Duplicates are allowed and ignored? Do we need to specify that we just ignore them, or should our "list" maintain both entries? I see in 4 and 6 there is a note about this issue, but perhaps it would help to have a comment in this section that "duplicate removal" is seen as optional. 3.2 Removeflag Action - Example contains :globalflags , But :globalflags isn't defined anywhere in the document. I remember it from the old revisions, did it get dropped? If so this example is now out of date... - If duplicate removal is "optional", then what happens if we have two flags, and we are asked to removeflag that flag. We remove both occurrences? Would it perhaps just be easier to say that we MUST do duplicate removal during addflags? Both removal of existing duplicates before we add the new flags, and any new duplicates created after adding the flags? - Don't understand what "Multiple occurrences of removeflag are treated additively." means. Does that mean multiple removeflag actions are treated additively, or does it refer to the content of the flags and answer my previous question about when multiple flags exist with the same name? 10. Extended Example - Extended example contains a few "add" actions that I think should be "addflags". - Suggest that you don't use a variable name of "flags" in the example, as it may confuse. Maybe "MyFlags" or something might be safer? Cheers Nigel Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h623ojFK099268 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:50:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h623ojjE099267 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:50:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from candle.brasslantern.com (snjpca1-ar2-4-64-233-009.snjpca1.dsl-verizon.net [4.64.233.9]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h623ohFK099261 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:50:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from schaefer@closedmail.com) Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h623of300898 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:50:41 -0700 From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <1030702035041.ZM897@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 03:50:41 +0000 In-Reply-To: <3F00B4CD.5090903@elvey.fastmail.fm> Comments: In reply to "Matthew Elvey (FM)" "Quizzic: Spam equivalent to EICAR test virus proposal." (Jun 30, 3:08pm) References: <3F00B4CD.5090903@elvey.fastmail.fm> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Quizzic: Spam equivalent to EICAR test virus proposal. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Just for comparison: SpamAssassin defines what's called the Generic Test for Unsolicited Bulk Email (GTUBE). It's defined as a string matching the regular expression XJS\*C4JDBQADN1\.NSBN3\*2IDNEN\*GTUBE-STANDARD-ANTI-UBE-TEST-EMAIL\*C\.34X appearing anywhere in the message body, after decoding and HTML rendering. (I write the regular expression rather than the string itself so that any of you running spamassassin won't score this message at 1000 points.) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h61BMdFK046662 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 04:22:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h61BMduL046661 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 04:22:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h61BMcFK046655 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 04:22:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nsyracus@cnri.reston.va.us) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA06936; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 07:22:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200307011122.HAA06936@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; CC: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-melnikov-sieve-imapflags-05.txt Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:22:33 -0400 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Sieve -- IMAP flag Extension Author(s) : A. Melnikov Filename : draft-melnikov-sieve-imapflags-05.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2003-6-30 Recent discussions have shown that it is desirable to set different [IMAP] flags on message delivery. This can be done, for example, by a Sieve interpreter that works as a part of a Mail Delivery Agent. This document describes an extension to the Sieve mail filtering language for setting [IMAP] flags. The extension allows to set both [IMAP] system flags and [IMAP] keywords. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-melnikov-sieve-imapflags-05.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-melnikov-sieve-imapflags-05.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-melnikov-sieve-imapflags-05.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-6-30151310.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-melnikov-sieve-imapflags-05.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-melnikov-sieve-imapflags-05.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-6-30151310.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart--