Cloud9.net related responses

[Jos Chrispijn-4]

Hi team, can it be that responses in this mailinglist are also send by cloud9.net instead of only postfix.org?
Just asking to prevent contermination by importing parallel newsgroup source.

Best, Jos

[Wietse Venema]

Jos Chrispijn:
> Hi team, can it be that responses in this mailinglist are also send by
> cloud9.net instead of only postfix.org?
> Just asking to prevent contermination by importing parallel newsgroup
> source.

postfix list mail has a postfix-org sender address.

        Wietse

[Nick Tait]

On 12/02/2021 7:09 am, Jos Chrispijn wrote:

Hi team, can it be that responses in this mailinglist are also send by cloud9.net instead of only postfix.org?
Just asking to prevent contermination by importing parallel newsgroup source.

All mail that I receive from this mailing list is relayed to my MX server from a Cloud9.net server. E.g.:

Received: from camomile.cloud9.net (camomile.cloud9.net [168.100.1.3])

[Viktor Dukhovni]

On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 05:11:32PM +1300, Nick Tait wrote:

> On 12/02/2021 7:09 am, Jos Chrispijn wrote:
> > Hi team, can it be that responses in this mailinglist are also send by
> > cloud9.net instead of only postfix.org?
> > Just asking to prevent contermination by importing parallel newsgroup
> > source.
>
> All mail that I receive from this mailing list is relayed to my MX
> server from a Cloud9.net server. E.g.:
>
> Received: from camomile.cloud9.net (camomile.cloud9.net [168.100.1.3])

This is neither relevant nor surprising:

    postfix.org. IN MX 10 mail.cloud9.net.

but the MX host is irrelevant.  The mail is sent by the (Majordomo) list
manager for [hidden email].  This is evident in the "Sender:"
and "List-*" headers.

--
    Viktor.

[Bryan L. Gay]

I'm seeing some mailing list messages with to:
[hidden email] in the header. I had to update my filters to
get them sorted into my postfix mailing list folder.

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:16 PM Viktor Dukhovni
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 05:11:32PM +1300, Nick Tait wrote:
>
> > On 12/02/2021 7:09 am, Jos Chrispijn wrote:
> > > Hi team, can it be that responses in this mailinglist are also send by
> > > cloud9.net instead of only postfix.org?
> > > Just asking to prevent contermination by importing parallel newsgroup
> > > source.
> >
> > All mail that I receive from this mailing list is relayed to my MX
> > server from a Cloud9.net server. E.g.:
> >
> > Received: from camomile.cloud9.net (camomile.cloud9.net [168.100.1.3])
>
> This is neither relevant nor surprising:
>
>     postfix.org. IN MX 10 mail.cloud9.net.
>
> but the MX host is irrelevant.  The mail is sent by the (Majordomo) list
> manager for [hidden email].  This is evident in the "Sender:"
> and "List-*" headers.
>
> --
>     Viktor.

[Bob Proulx]

Bryan L. Gay wrote:
> I'm seeing some mailing list messages with to:
> [hidden email] in the header. I had to update my filters to
> get them sorted into my postfix mailing list folder.

If one is filtering mail selecting for mail through a mailing list
then one should not use the To: or Cc: for that filtering.  The best
and expected header to use is the List-Id: header.  That's the
standard mailing list header.  See RFC2929.

    RFC 2929 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2919

All mail through this mailing list sets this header.

    List-Id: Postfix users <[hidden email]>

Bob

P.S. It's a little strange to see an '@' in the List-Id.  But other
than mentioning it in passing I am going to ignore it. :-)

On 11 Feb 2021, at 23:09, Bob Proulx <[hidden email]> wrote:
> P.S. It's a little strange to see an '@' in the List-Id.  But other
> than mentioning it in passing I am going to ignore it. :-)

It is a bit unusual, and back when I was using proemial I had to account for that with a special case check to grab the part before the @ instead of before the first . as the list name.

I thought there was another list I subscribed to that did this to, but evidently not.

--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Um, I think so, Brain, but wasn't Dicky Ducky released on his own
        recognaissance?"

[Chris Green-11]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:09:06PM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:

> Bryan L. Gay wrote:
> > I'm seeing some mailing list messages with to:
> > [hidden email] in the header. I had to update my filters to
> > get them sorted into my postfix mailing list folder.
>
> If one is filtering mail selecting for mail through a mailing list
> then one should not use the To: or Cc: for that filtering.  The best
> and expected header to use is the List-Id: header.  That's the
> standard mailing list header.  See RFC2929.
>
>     RFC 2929 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2919
>
> All mail through this mailing list sets this header.
>
>     List-Id: Postfix users <[hidden email]>
>

Yes, that's all very well, but not all mailing lists are so well
behaved so a general mailing list filter can't rely on this. One would
have to base the filter on a combination of things.

My filter currently relies on a single filtering string so it can't do
this but, on thinking about it, it wouldn't be that difficult to come
up with a 'double match' approach.  However, whether it's worth the
effort I'm not sure, it's "good enough" at the moment.

--
Chris Green

On 12 Feb 2021, at 01:41, Chris Green <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:09:06PM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
>> Bryan L. Gay wrote:
>>> I'm seeing some mailing list messages with to:
>>> [hidden email] in the header. I had to update my filters to
>>> get them sorted into my postfix mailing list folder.
>>
>> If one is filtering mail selecting for mail through a mailing list
>> then one should not use the To: or Cc: for that filtering.  The best
>> and expected header to use is the List-Id: header.  That's the
>> standard mailing list header.  See RFC2929.
>>
>>    RFC 2929 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2919
>>
>> All mail through this mailing list sets this header.
>>
>>    List-Id: Postfix users <[hidden email]>

> Yes, that's all very well, but not all mailing lists are so well
> behaved

Most are. The drawback is that some marketing emails pretend to be mailing list messages as well. mcsv.net is one popular mailer that does this.

> so a general mailing list filter can't rely on this. One would
> have to base the filter on a combination of things.

I think I have three rules in Sieve that catch all list mail, but nearly all is caught by the first that checked List-ID.

Ah, nope, I see I trimmed back to just the single list-id rule.

if header :regex "list-id" "^\\s*<?([a-z_0-9-]+)[.@]" {
   set :lower "listname" "${1}";
   fileinto :create "${listname}";
}

(I do have some custom rules for some lists to rewrite the reply-to header, or to group related lists into a single folder


--
It's the terror of knowing what this world is about
Watching some good friends screaming let me out
Gets me higher pressure on people, people on the streets

[Jaroslaw Rafa]

Dnia 12.02.2021 o godz. 04:47:47 @lbutlr pisze:
>
> > Yes, that's all very well, but not all mailing lists are so well
> > behaved
>
> Most are. The drawback is that some marketing emails pretend to be mailing
> list messages as well.

Maybe because people who send these use actual mailing list software for
that?
--
Regards,
   Jaroslaw Rafa
   [hidden email]
--
"In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there
was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub."

On Feb 12, 2021, at 06:54, Jaroslaw Rafa <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Maybe because people who send these use actual mailing list software for
> that?

Could be but I don’t consider marketing spam to be a mailing list and don’t consider list ids with dozens or hundreds of random-ish characters to be a legitimate list-ID. Ymmv, of course.

--
My main job is trying to come up with new and innovative and effective ways to reject even more mail. I'm up to about 99% now.