Subject: Re: filtering active content

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 20:19:14 -0600 (MDT)

> From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
> To: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
> cc: [email-masked]

> ..
> so having people unable to receive IETF mail because of your naivete 
> isn't harmful?

Having them not able to receive their re-directed copies of virus
warnings is a feature, not a bug.  If they can't run their forwarders
right, or find people who can, then they should be spending time fixing
those problems instead of reading this mailing list.

In other words, it's not naivete to say that if you want to play with
the big kids, you ought know what you're doing.

> p.s. perhaps you should see if Microsoft is hiring. it sounds like you'd 
> fit right in :)

You first, given the 8 copies I've received and the 7 that everyone
else has received of your <[email-masked]>
(I'm guessing that everyone else has received 7, since the last three
duplicates I've received differ in Received: lines starting with the
astro.cs.utk.edu --> ietf.org hop as in:

} Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (astro.cs.utk.edu [160.36.58.43])
}         by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA28761
}         for <[email-masked]>; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 15:44:13 -0400 (EDT)

] Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (astro.cs.utk.edu [160.36.58.43])
]         by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA02419
]         for <[email-masked]>; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 16:14:18 -0400 (EDT)

) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (astro.cs.utk.edu [160.36.58.43])
)         by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA05557
)         for <[email-masked]>; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 16:44:11 -0400 (EDT)

It was only after 5 duplicates that I realized something was wrong,
so I don't have the other headers.

I'm hoping the decreasing interval means that the stream will
stop instead of meaning it's going to get a lot worse.

I don't know why there is only one copy in
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/maillist.html

On the 19th, everyone probably received two copies of one of mine. 
From log entries and headers, I think that was due to the 50-75% and
intermittent 100% packet losses among my ISP's routers during the midst
of the Code Red problems, and ietf.org sending a 200-series response that
never got here.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 22:40:56 -0400

> warnings is a feature, not a bug.  

and presumably having them not be able to receive any mail from the
IETF list is a feature, also?  or didn't you bother to read what I wrote?

> If they can't run their forwarders

what makes you think it's *their* forwarders that are causing the problem?

> the big kids, you ought know what you're doing.

and perhaps, so should you.

> else has received of your <[email-masked]>

perhaps you should read RFC 1047 before you start pointing fingers.
but since you mentioned it, the message was still in my mail 
queue with "error waiting for reply from DATA".  I removed it.

Keith

p.s. in case you missed it the point of my original message was:

it's fine to make suggestions for how to solve problems, but you might
consider that you don't understand enough about the problem to  say for 
sure that you know the fix.  people have looked at using precedence: bulk
before and found problems with it.  conditions do change, so maybe 
it would work well enough now.  but it has done harm in the past.