From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7293 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2009 11:59:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 7271 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Mar 2009 11:59:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HK_OBFDOM,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from qw-out-1920.google.com (HELO qw-out-1920.google.com) (74.125.92.146) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:58:49 +0000 Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 4so2370308qwk.20 for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 03:58:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.224.73.210 with SMTP id r18mr11444826qaj.210.1236167927086; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 03:58:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?82.6.108.62? (cpc2-cmbg8-0-0-cust61.cmbg.cable.ntl.com [82.6.108.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 8sm11017372ywg.34.2009.03.04.03.58.44 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 04 Mar 2009 03:58:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <49AE6F03.5040003@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:59:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pmcferrin@columbus.rr.com CC: The Vulgar and Non-RFC-Compliant Cygwin-Talk List Subject: Re: Your setting Return-Path to YOU in your cygwin@cygwin postings References: <49ADA916.40700@columbus.rr.com> <49ADBA0D.6040405@gmail.com> <49ADEF5E.3060804@columbus.rr.com> <49ADF5B5.5000102@gmail.com> <49AE0F52.1060006@columbus.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <49AE0F52.1060006@columbus.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List X-SW-Source: 2009-q1/txt/msg00046.txt.bz2 [ This is completely off-topic, so moved to the proper list. ] Paul McFerrin wrote: > Dave: > > I examined your email headers and discovered that in your postings to > cygwin ARGH DO NOT POST EMAIL ADDRESSES TO THE LIST cygwin.com, you are > setting "Return-Path: " in > your email header so naturally everyone who is "replying" to sender will be > sending YOU their reply, not cygwin ARGH cygwin.com. This could explain why you > are getting so much direct replies. That's not actually what's happening. Here is the raw text of my most recent list posting at sourceware: http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/get-raw-msg?listname=cygwin&date=2009-03&msgid=49ADFA41.4050308%40gmail.com As you can see there is no such header. Here are a few others; likewise. http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/get-raw-msg?listname=cygwin&date=2009-03&msgid=49ADE7FF.80005%40gmail.com http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/get-raw-msg?listname=cygwin&date=2009-03&msgid=49ADE7DC.6030205%40gmail.com http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/get-raw-msg?listname=cygwin&date=2009-03&msgid=49ADBA0D.6040405%40gmail.com http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/get-raw-msg?listname=cygwin&date=2009-03&msgid=49AD9861.7050601%40gmail.com Notice how the Return-Path in all of these posts is a munged version of the list subscriber name, as should be the case in all posts sent out by the sourceware mailing lists; that way, if mail bounces, it is returned to the list daemon, which can find out which list subscriber is bouncing and stop sending messages if they carry on bouncing them for too long. Note also how all those paths have a Mail-Followup-To header pointing at the list. Any mailer that does not respect that when you hit Reply is broken and does not comply with internet standards. The Return-Path is for automated error messages *only*, not replies of any sort. Also, here is a screenshot of my email settings, where I do not have any Reply-To header set: http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/3118/mysettings.png You'll just have to take my word for it that I haven't changed them since you suggested this, although the historical record of my posts in the archive backs me up on this. Here also are the headers of one of the posts in my local sent items folder (modulo obvious anti-spam munging) >From - Tue Mar 03 23:15:26 2009 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00800000 X-Mozilla-Keys: Message-ID: <49ADBA0D.6040405@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:15:25 +0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin SPLAT cygwin SPOT com Subject: Re: concurrent use of cygwin1.dll for 1.5 & 1.7 ?? References: <49ADA916.40700@columbus.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <49ADA916.40700@columbus.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit corresponding to the message mentioned previously at http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/get-raw-msg?listname=cygwin&date=2009-03&msgid=49ADBA0D.6040405%40gmail.com Note that it also has no return-path header. Also, to see how the email headers look when they're received downstream from sourceware, I went to gmane to look for the same post there. Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dave Korn Newsgroups: gmane.os.cygwin Subject: Re: concurrent use of cygwin1.dll for 1.5 & 1.7 ?? Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:15:25 +0000 Lines: 17 Approved: news SPLAT gmane SPOT org Message-ID: <49ADBA0D.6040405@gmail.com> References: <49ADA916.40700@columbus.rr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1236121596 6607 80.91.229.12 (3 Mar 2009 23:06:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet SPLAT ger SPOT gmane SPOT org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 23:06:36 +0000 (UTC) To: cygwin SPLAT cygwin SPOT com Original-X-From: cygwin-return-148486-goc-cygwin=m SPOT gmane SPOT org SPLAT cygwin SPOT com Wed Mar 04 00:07:52 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: goc-cygwin SPLAT gmane SPOT org Original-Received: from sourceware.org ([209.132.176.174]) by lo.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LediC-0006oG-50 for goc-cygwin SPLAT gmane SPOT org; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:07:44 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 15139 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2009 23:06:14 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 15131 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Mar 2009 23:06:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Original-Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com (HELO ey-out-1920.google.com) (74.125.78.145) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:06:07 +0000 Original-Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 26so497818eyw.20 for ; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:06:04 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.210.117.1 with SMTP id p1mr1670744ebc.9.1236121564306; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:06:04 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from ?82.6.108.62? (cpc2-cmbg8-0-0-cust61.cmbg.cable.ntl.com [82.6.108.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k9sm10716748nfh.62.2009.03.03.15.06.03 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:06:04 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) In-Reply-To: <49ADA916.40700@columbus.rr.com> Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help SPLAT cygwin SPOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Original-Sender: cygwin-owner SPLAT cygwin SPOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin SPLAT cygwin SPOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin SPLAT cygwin SPOT com Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.os.cygwin:104617 Archived-At: As before, you can see that the return path is the proper bounce address for auto-unsubscribing, and the Mail-Followup-To points to the list. So, I trust there is no doubt that at least one of us knows how to drive a mailer. However, I'm willing to take your word for it that you have experienced some kind of confusion or misunderstanding at your end through no malicious intent of your own. It strikes me that you could be the innocent victim of a buggy mail server at your ISP. (Come to think of it, this is RR we're talking about; it would be a surprise if you /weren't/ suffering from lousy servers at your ISP....) You were unlucky to be the 'n'th person in a row to mail me and be there at just the point when I lost patience, but I don't suppose they all have faulty ISP mailservers. The text in RFC5321 that defines the Return-Path header is as follows: When the delivery SMTP server makes the "final delivery" of a message, it inserts a return-path line at the beginning of the mail data. This use of return-path is required; mail systems MUST support it. The return-path line preserves the information in the from the MAIL command. Here, final delivery means the message has left the SMTP environment. Normally, this would mean it had been delivered to the destination user or an associated mail drop, but in some cases it may be further processed and transmitted by another mail system. (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321) What this implies is that the bogus Return-Path header must have been generated at your ISP mailserver, and I can guess what it's doing wrong: it's using the address in the From: line in the email (rfc822) headers, rather than the address in the "MAIL FROM" command when it receives the email from sourceware.org, which sourceware.org will be presenting as the munged version containing the subscribed user's address. So, I see that you are the victim of an unfortunate accident, although I maintain that sending me the same request twice five minutes apart was a bit pushy. I've unblocked your address; please remember that, through no fault of your own, you'll have to take more care in future. cheers, DaveK