(no subject)

[Richard B. Johnson]

FYI vger rejects mail sent from yahoo.com, claims that it
has a HTML subpart and considers it spam or Outlook Virus.

FYI any mail sent from yahoo will end up using the yahoo tools
(qmail). This will put an empty HTML section in all mail. It
is not a good thing to reject this because that means you reject
all mail from yahoo.

I have gotten several messages of this kind by persons who are
not bold enough to report problems on their own. The last rejection
of which I speak was rejected from N26835@yahoo.com on april 2
at 19:38:00


Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.20 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.

(no subject)

[David S. Miller]

On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 08:22, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> FYI vger rejects mail sent from yahoo.com, claims that it
> has a HTML subpart and considers it spam or Outlook Virus.
> 
> FYI any mail sent from yahoo will end up using the yahoo tools
> (qmail). This will put an empty HTML section in all mail. It
> is not a good thing to reject this because that means you reject
> all mail from yahoo.

That's yahoo users problem not ours.  If you can't be bothered
to get a plain text email out, you shouldn't be using these
lists.

VGER isn't the only place outright blocking HTML attached emails.

-- 
David S. Miller <davem@redhat.com>

Re: your mail

[Alan Cox]

On Iau, 2003-04-03 at 21:02, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> Well it's not a yahoo users problem because yahoo users can't fix
> it. Some yahoo users have yahoo "free" mail as their only connection
> to the internet because of facist network administrators. It gets
> worse how that you can't tell a company to go screw themselves and
> get another job. The three engineers that I know who use yahoo do
> so because they don't have any choice and there is no way that they
> can configure the mailer to get rid of the empty HTML section.

There are lots of other free email providers.

Re: your mail

[David S. Miller]

   From: "Richard B. Johnson" <root@chaos.analogic.com>
   Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:02:41 -0500 (EST)
   
   Well it's not a yahoo users problem because yahoo users can't fix
   it. Some yahoo users have yahoo "free" mail as their only connection
   to the internet because of facist network administrators.

If you want all the SPAM that will result on Linux-kernel, we
can disable the filter if you want.

I refuse to sit here and listen to all the "this is the only
connection person FOO has to the internet" stories, quite frankly I'm
absolutely sick of hearing them.

If you don't have properly functioning mail, you can't use these
lists.

Period.

Re: your mail

[Richard B. Johnson]

On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, David S. Miller wrote:

> On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 08:22, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > FYI vger rejects mail sent from yahoo.com, claims that it
> > has a HTML subpart and considers it spam or Outlook Virus.
> >
> > FYI any mail sent from yahoo will end up using the yahoo tools
> > (qmail). This will put an empty HTML section in all mail. It
> > is not a good thing to reject this because that means you reject
> > all mail from yahoo.
>
> That's yahoo users problem not ours.  If you can't be bothered
> to get a plain text email out, you shouldn't be using these
> lists.
>

Well it's not a yahoo users problem because yahoo users can't fix
it. Some yahoo users have yahoo "free" mail as their only connection
to the internet because of facist network administrators. It gets
worse how that you can't tell a company to go screw themselves and
get another job. The three engineers that I know who use yahoo do
so because they don't have any choice and there is no way that they
can configure the mailer to get rid of the empty HTML section.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.20 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.

Re: your mail

[David S. Miller]

   From: "Richard B. Johnson" <root@chaos.analogic.com>
   Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:21:25 -0500 (EST)

   On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, David S. Miller wrote:
   
   > If you want all the SPAM that will result on Linux-kernel, we
   > can disable the filter if you want.
   
   No. I think you can let empty HTML sections go through.
   
I think these people who it matters to can petition yahoo.com to drop
this dumb empty HTML section.

Re: your mail

[Richard B. Johnson]

On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, David S. Miller wrote:

>    From: "Richard B. Johnson" <root@chaos.analogic.com>
>    Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:02:41 -0500 (EST)
>
>    Well it's not a yahoo users problem because yahoo users can't fix
>    it. Some yahoo users have yahoo "free" mail as their only connection
>    to the internet because of facist network administrators.
>
> If you want all the SPAM that will result on Linux-kernel, we
> can disable the filter if you want.

No. I think you can let empty HTML sections go through.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.20 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.

Re: your mail

[Trever L. Adams]

On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 15:02, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> Well it's not a yahoo users problem because yahoo users can't fix
> it. Some yahoo users have yahoo "free" mail as their only connection
> to the internet because of facist network administrators. It gets
> worse how that you can't tell a company to go screw themselves and
> get another job. The three engineers that I know who use yahoo do
> so because they don't have any choice and there is no way that they
> can configure the mailer to get rid of the empty HTML section.

I would suggest that those who think Yahoo is there only option, check
out digitalme.com or myrealbox.com.  Web, pop, imap, etc.  All free.

Trever
--
"Never raise your hand to your children - it leaves your midsection
unprotected." -- Matthew Harrell

Re: your mail

[William Scott Lockwood III]

On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, David S. Miller wrote:
>    From: "Richard B. Johnson" <root@chaos.analogic.com>
>    Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:02:41 -0500 (EST)
>    Well it's not a yahoo users problem because yahoo users can't fix
>    it. Some yahoo users have yahoo "free" mail as their only connection
>    to the internet because of facist network administrators.
> If you want all the SPAM that will result on Linux-kernel, we
> can disable the filter if you want.
> I refuse to sit here and listen to all the "this is the only
> connection person FOO has to the internet" stories, quite frankly I'm
> absolutely sick of hearing them.
> If you don't have properly functioning mail, you can't use these
> lists.
> Period.

When did that become your call?  I didn't realize you owned LKML.

Re: your mail

[David S. Miller]

   From: William Scott Lockwood III <vlad@geekizoid.com>
   Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 16:31:13 -0800 (PST)

   When did that become your call?  I didn't realize you owned LKML.
   
Maybe this is news to you, but I've been running LKML for
6 or so years now.

Re: your mail

[William Scott Lockwood III]

Yeah, sorry - I thought HPA was running it for some reason.  I still don't
think you should make that kind of a call unilaterally, but hey - after
all the incessant whining I put up with about using OE, I finally caved
and moved to a real email address myself.  I guess it just goes to show
that if you while and act petulant long enough...

On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, David S. Miller wrote:

>    From: William Scott Lockwood III <vlad@geekizoid.com>
>    Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 16:31:13 -0800 (PST)
>
>    When did that become your call?  I didn't realize you owned LKML.
>
> Maybe this is news to you, but I've been running LKML for
> 6 or so years now.
>

Re: Yahoo! includes empty html section in the mails

[Alex Riesen]

Richard B. Johnson, Thu, Apr 03, 2003 18:22:01 +0200:
> FYI vger rejects mail sent from yahoo.com, claims that it
> has a HTML subpart and considers it spam or Outlook Virus.
> 
> FYI any mail sent from yahoo will end up using the yahoo tools
> (qmail). This will put an empty HTML section in all mail. It
> is not a good thing to reject this because that means you reject
> all mail from yahoo.

Is that actually so?

------------------ BEGIN -----------------------
Received: from mother.synopsys.com (mother.synopsys.com [146.225.100.171])
        by goofy.gr05.synopsys.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA22798
        for <riesen@gr05.synopsys.com>; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 10:11:10 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from riesen@localhost)
        by mother.synopsys.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id AAA19327
        for riesen@gr05.synopsys.com; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 00:10:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from boden.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
        by mother.synopsys.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA19321
        for <Alexander.Riesen@synopsys.com>; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 00:10:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from psmtp.com (exprod5mx45.postini.com [12.158.34.212])
        by boden.synopsys.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AADCAE626
        for <riesen@synopsys.com>; Fri,  4 Apr 2003 00:11:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from source ([216.136.174.73]) by exprod5mx45.postini.com ([12.158.34.245]) with SMTP;
        Fri, 04 Apr 2003 00:11:08 PST
Message-ID: <20030404081108.78756.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [212.133.48.101] by web12906.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 04 Apr 2003 00:11:08 PST
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 00:11:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Alex Riesen <fork0@yahoo.com>
Subject: test3
To: Alexander.Riesen@synopsys.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Spam: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.786700, version=0.11.1.3

fkdjlgksdlfgsd
ldsjfgsjdlkfjdsjf
sdfjglsdjfkljsdlk

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com

------------------ END -----------------------

Re: your mail

[Richard B. Johnson]

On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, William Scott Lockwood III wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, David S. Miller wrote:
> >    From: "Richard B. Johnson" <root@chaos.analogic.com>
> >    Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:02:41 -0500 (EST)
> >    Well it's not a yahoo users problem because yahoo users can't fix
> >    it. Some yahoo users have yahoo "free" mail as their only connection
> >    to the internet because of facist network administrators.
> > If you want all the SPAM that will result on Linux-kernel, we
> > can disable the filter if you want.
> > I refuse to sit here and listen to all the "this is the only
> > connection person FOO has to the internet" stories, quite frankly I'm
> > absolutely sick of hearing them.
> > If you don't have properly functioning mail, you can't use these
> > lists.
> > Period.
>
> When did that become your call?  I didn't realize you owned LKML.
>

Well it's his "baseball" and; "You'll play by my rules or you won't
play at all..."

FYI, there is no Major Domo. It's Latin, major domus, "master of
the house". He doith whatever he careth...

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.20 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.

Re: Yahoo! includes empty html section in the mails

[William Scott Lockwood III]

The only problem with posting the full headers and source of the email, is
you might confuse Dave with the facts.  Remember:  We hate anything free
that isn't software, or anything "commercial" and will tar and feather you
until you comply with the will of The Party.  Dave will be around next
week to install your telescreen...

regards,
another former prole

Re: your mail

[William Scott Lockwood III]

On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, William Scott Lockwood III wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, David S. Miller wrote:
> > >    From: "Richard B. Johnson" <root@chaos.analogic.com>
> > >    Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:02:41 -0500 (EST)
> > >    Well it's not a yahoo users problem because yahoo users can't fix
> > >    it. Some yahoo users have yahoo "free" mail as their only connection
> > >    to the internet because of facist network administrators.
> > > If you want all the SPAM that will result on Linux-kernel, we
> > > can disable the filter if you want.
> > > I refuse to sit here and listen to all the "this is the only
> > > connection person FOO has to the internet" stories, quite frankly I'm
> > > absolutely sick of hearing them.
> > > If you don't have properly functioning mail, you can't use these
> > > lists.
> > > Period.
> > When did that become your call?  I didn't realize you owned LKML.
> Well it's his "baseball" and; "You'll play by my rules or you won't
> play at all..."
> FYI, there is no Major Domo. It's Latin, major domus, "master of
> the house". He doith whatever he careth...

Yes, I can see that.  No matter who it alienates.  Weither or not he's
checked with anyone else either.  How about leting those of us who (like
Linus) choose to use a commercial email product do so?  Garbage about
headers, etc. is just that - garbage.  The best list is one that is
inclusive.  One that tollerates other opinions and choices.  LKML has
turned into the largest, nastiest click I've ever seen, and that's really
sad, as I'm sure it scares some good people away.  Look at all the crap I
and others got for using hotmail - I finally got sick and tired of the
whining and now have to take 3x as long to read my mail - but it's not a
hotmail address anymore, so the whining stoped.  Why not spend less timing
restricting what people can read and post from, and just let people
participate?

Re: Yahoo! includes empty html section in the mails

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 07:12:11AM -0800, William Scott Lockwood III wrote:
> The only problem with posting the full headers and source of the email, is
> you might confuse Dave with the facts.  Remember:  We hate anything free
> that isn't software, or anything "commercial" and will tar and feather you
> until you comply with the will of The Party.  Dave will be around next
> week to install your telescreen...

Get a clue.

Re: your mail

[Richard B. Johnson]

On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, William Scott Lockwood III wrote:

> On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, William Scott Lockwood III wrote:
> > > On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, David S. Miller wrote:
> > > >    From: "Richard B. Johnson" <root@chaos.analogic.com>
> > > >    Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:02:41 -0500 (EST)
> > > >    Well it's not a yahoo users problem because yahoo users can't fix
> > > >    it. Some yahoo users have yahoo "free" mail as their only connection
> > > >    to the internet because of facist network administrators.
> > > > If you want all the SPAM that will result on Linux-kernel, we
> > > > can disable the filter if you want.
> > > > I refuse to sit here and listen to all the "this is the only
> > > > connection person FOO has to the internet" stories, quite frankly I'm
> > > > absolutely sick of hearing them.
> > > > If you don't have properly functioning mail, you can't use these
> > > > lists.
> > > > Period.
> > > When did that become your call?  I didn't realize you owned LKML.
> > Well it's his "baseball" and; "You'll play by my rules or you won't
> > play at all..."
> > FYI, there is no Major Domo. It's Latin, major domus, "master of
> > the house". He doith whatever he careth...
>
> Yes, I can see that.  No matter who it alienates.  Weither or not he's
> checked with anyone else either.  How about leting those of us who (like
> Linus) choose to use a commercial email product do so?  Garbage about
> headers, etc. is just that - garbage.  The best list is one that is
> inclusive.  One that tollerates other opinions and choices.  LKML has
> turned into the largest, nastiest click I've ever seen, and that's really
> sad, as I'm sure it scares some good people away.  Look at all the crap I
> and others got for using hotmail - I finally got sick and tired of the
> whining and now have to take 3x as long to read my mail - but it's not a
> hotmail address anymore, so the whining stoped.  Why not spend less timing
> restricting what people can read and post from, and just let people
> participate?
>

Well SPAM is a very big problem and I can see that David is trying.
Sometimes he has a bad day and pisses a few off with his answers.
However, in every case in which somebody that I know of has complained,
the problems did get "mysteriously" fixed so, like they say; "Don't go
away mad. Just go away!".

Once you get flammed for a few years, you get used to it. That's why
some people send email to me rather than "the list". Sometimes I am
able to help without having to forward their problems to the list.
Sometimes I have to take a work-break and can't help, and other times
I can't help because I don't know what they are talking about. Anyway
if David wants invoke the rage of the Gods, yawn... It doesn't bother
me anymore....


Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.20 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.

Re: your mail

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 07:28:12AM -0800, William Scott Lockwood III wrote:
> Yes, I can see that.  No matter who it alienates.  Weither or not he's
> checked with anyone else either.

LKML is DaveM's list.  If the choice he and his co-postmaster make don't
suit yours or others need setup your own linux kernel list.

> How about leting those of us who (like
> Linus) choose to use a commercial email product do so?  Garbage about
> headers, etc. is just that - garbage.

Who said anything about commercial products?  lkml refuses _broken_
mails, it doesn't check what MUA you used.

> and others got for using hotmail - I finally got sick and tired of the
> whining and now have to take 3x as long to read my mail - but it's not a
> hotmail address anymore, so the whining stoped.  Why not spend less timing
> restricting what people can read and post from, and just let people
> participate?

Please red the mail RFC and the nettiquette and come back once you've
done that.  Your current whining wastes our time.

Re: your mail

[Jens Axboe]

On Fri, Apr 04 2003, William Scott Lockwood III wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, William Scott Lockwood III wrote:
> > > On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, David S. Miller wrote:
> > > >    From: "Richard B. Johnson" <root@chaos.analogic.com>
> > > >    Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:02:41 -0500 (EST)
> > > >    Well it's not a yahoo users problem because yahoo users can't fix
> > > >    it. Some yahoo users have yahoo "free" mail as their only connection
> > > >    to the internet because of facist network administrators.
> > > > If you want all the SPAM that will result on Linux-kernel, we
> > > > can disable the filter if you want.
> > > > I refuse to sit here and listen to all the "this is the only
> > > > connection person FOO has to the internet" stories, quite frankly I'm
> > > > absolutely sick of hearing them.
> > > > If you don't have properly functioning mail, you can't use these
> > > > lists.
> > > > Period.
> > > When did that become your call?  I didn't realize you owned LKML.
> > Well it's his "baseball" and; "You'll play by my rules or you won't
> > play at all..."
> > FYI, there is no Major Domo. It's Latin, major domus, "master of
> > the house". He doith whatever he careth...
> 
> Yes, I can see that.  No matter who it alienates.  Weither or not he's
> checked with anyone else either.  How about leting those of us who (like
> Linus) choose to use a commercial email product do so?  Garbage about
> headers, etc. is just that - garbage.  The best list is one that is
> inclusive.  One that tollerates other opinions and choices.  LKML has
> turned into the largest, nastiest click I've ever seen, and that's really
> sad, as I'm sure it scares some good people away.  Look at all the crap I
> and others got for using hotmail - I finally got sick and tired of the
> whining and now have to take 3x as long to read my mail - but it's not a
> hotmail address anymore, so the whining stoped.  Why not spend less timing
> restricting what people can read and post from, and just let people
> participate?

Oh please go away. Would you rather see lkml be as ridden with spam as
other lists? You have the right to use a commercial product, and you may
also exercise your right to choose a _bad_ one.

Besides, crap like the above doesn't carry much weight. Especially not
from someone who rarely contributes anything but noise on the list. No
time for whiners, to the kill file you go.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: your mail

[Matti Aarnio]

On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 07:28:12AM -0800, William Scott Lockwood III wrote:
...
> The best list is one that is inclusive.  One that tollerates other opinions
> and choices.  LKML has turned into the largest, nastiest click I've ever
> seen, and that's really sad, as I'm sure it scares some good people away.

Are you speaking about PEOPLE who react on emails by flaming, or
something of list filtering "technology" ?

>  Look at all the crap I and others got for using hotmail - I finally
> got sick and tired of the whining and now have to take 3x as long to 
> read my mail - but it's not a hotmail address anymore, so the whining
> stoped.

About people, then..    There I can't help, unfortunately.

We have lots of people subscribing on Hotmail addresses, and only 
complaint I can voice is that those people will at times let their
mailbox quotas overflow, which leads to bounces, and then subscription
revocation...  (Hard controlled quotas are not unique to Hotmail, nor
people who let them overflow...)


> Why not spend less timing restricting what people can read and post
> from, and just let people participate?

There is this small thing called spam...

We have various filters (see my other posting), but obviously they
are not infallible, a few spams do leak thru, and earn new filter
rules (if I can think up something suitably specific, while generic..)

A somewhat better anti-spam filter method, than what we use presently
is to use strictly CLOSED list -- e.g. must be a member to post.
I have seen what kind of pains closed lists are, I even moderate
couple small ones.

However we are deliberately running "open for posting, subject to
filters" policy, which lets questions and reports to come from
non-subscribers.


/Matti Aarnio