add "Auto-Submitted: auto-generated" to generated EMails?

[Grant Taylor]

On 3/12/23 4:58 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Are you sure you want to disagree given your agreement below about 
> Gmail?  25% of all email addresses in the world are hosted by Gmail, 
> so if you agree with me about Gmail, we're halfway to my assertion 
> already.  :)  But anyway, this is really somewhat beside the point.

I'm not ready to give up on email servers / addresses silently throwing 
things away.

I still believe and strive for SMTP servers not /silently/ loosing an email.

I want to believe that if there wasn't an error, then the message made 
it to the email address.  Thus if it's not where the recipient expects 
it to be, the problem is on the recipient's end.

> Use of fake email addresses on Usenet is ubiquitous, and those 
> who don't use them are often using providers with SPF or DMARC, so 
> lifting the email address of the poster into the envelope sender is a 
> recipe for various errors or straight-up rejection of messages due to 
> DMARC rules or even basic deliverability checks.

Agreed.

> Instead, messages normally have the local newsmaster mailbox as the 
> envelope sender, so that's where the bounces go.  (I believe that's 
> the only thing INN supports, although I haven't looked at it recently 
> and maybe my memory is faulty.)

Okay.  So messages not approved by the moderator are likely to go back 
to the newsmaster whom is almost certainly not the proper person.

> Maybe now that Usenet has become sort of a niche hobby some percentage 
> of newsmasters would look at that mailbox.  Certainly a few years 
> ago when commercial providers were common, essentially no one bothered.

I was going to say that I check my newsmaster account the same way that 
I check abuse and hostmaster accounts.  Unfortunately while confirming 
my newsmaster account, I found that it wasn't working.  I've since fixed 
that.  Now all three accounts, newsmaster, abuse, and hostmaster land in 
my inbox.

Aside:  I see exceedingly little spam to abuse / hostmaster.  I hope 
newsmaster continues the trend.

> Exactly.
> 
> And while you and I may wince about the amount of mail that gets lost, 
> I spend enough time still talking to regular email users to be quite 
> certain that Gmail's behavior is basically what they want.

I question the veracity of that.  My doubt is with what I'm assuming is 
innocent ignorance on most people's part not knowing that they should 
expect better.

> They may get annoyed around the edges, but they definitely would not 
> tolerate the sort of spam situation that I tolerate.  I know even 
> technical people who were used to running their own mail servers 
> who switched to Gmail and were amazed at how much better the spam 
> filtering was and how much they preferred losing mail occasionally 
> to having to deal with the spam.  (Don't shoot the messenger; I still 
> run my own mail server.)

I understand the sentiment that you are talking about.

I guess I get remarkably little spam, especially considering the number 
of addresses (multiple hundreds) that dump into a single account with 
even more folders.

> Again, moderators may be different.  (They clearly are to some extent 
> given how few moderator submission addresses I found at Gmail, 
> certainly not 25%.)  So maybe something that expects something 
> different of the email server could work.

:-)

> Oh, good lord, no.  This is not even remotely true.  I haven't touched 
> the software that I use to moderate the groups I moderate in any 
> substantial way since maybe 2005.
> 
> Usenet really doesn't change very much.

Perhaps the schism is over my use of the word "current".

Does the software that you're using do it's job?  Is it comparable to 
the configuration that it needs to be compatible and interoperate with?

Would you fix it if you were aware of a problem?  Especially if that 
problem was preventing you from performing your function as a moderator?

> Which brings us back to my point in the original discussion: 
> we need some way to know which moderators are able to receive 
> encapsulated messages and change how they're sent messages based on 
> that configuration.

I think at the very least it will require active concurrence with 
moderators.

As such, I would think that it would be possible to do something on a 
per recipient moderator basis, if not per moderated newsgroup.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4017 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/inn-workers/attachments/20230312/811b4e32/attachment.bin>