Subject: Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

From: "Byung-Hee HWANG (황병희)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 00:05:57 +0900

Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]> 께서 쓰시길,
 《記事 全文 <[email-masked]>
 에서》:

> I'm looking for a decentralized instant message system (e.g. XMPP, SIP,
> ...) where I can be sure that I receive all messages, even if I'm not
> connected when the message is sent [ Obviously, I'll only receive them
> when I'm back online.  ]
>
> IIUC there is some XMPP features that allow such reliable delivery, but
> it seems that it's not widely supported by clients.  What Debian
> clients, using which protocols, can provide reliable instant messaging?
>
>
>         Stefan
>
>
> PS: Bonus points if that feature is also available on an Android
> application that's Free Software.

Hello,

In Korea, all most people are using KakaoTalk (android app).
If i am wrong, sorry, and let it go to off-topic.

Sincerely,
 
-- 
^고맙습니다 _地平天成_ 감사합니다_^))//

---

From: Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 16:05:45 -0400

> If i am wrong, sorry, and let it go to off-topic.

It's not decentralized.  IOW you're dependent on one central
server/company and everything goes through them, they get an insane
amount of data and power this way.

        Stefan

---

From: "Byung-Hee HWANG (황병희)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2016 22:21:32 +0900

Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]> 께서 쓰시길,

> amount of data and power this way.

By your comments, i did get KakaoTalk internal, thanks!!!

---

From: Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2016 09:10:08 -0400

>> amount of data and power this way.

Of course, another major problem with it, AFAICT, is that there's no
Free Software client for it.

> By your comments, i did get KakaoTalk internal, thanks!!!

Sorry, but I don't know what you mean by that.

        Stefan

---

From: "Byung-Hee HWANG (황병희)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2016 00:45:20 +0900

Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]> 께서 쓰시길,
 《記事 全文 <[email-masked]>

> Free Software client for it.

Free Software is diffcult to non-programmer such me. 

> Sorry, but I don't know what you mean by that.

Stefan, still i am work-in-progress in English, never mind it, that was
just my lame writing, there is no mean.

Thank you for your kind comments, indeed.

---

From: Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2016 12:50:08 -0400

> Free Software is diffcult to non-programmer such me. 

This is a Debian discussion group.  I think we all here agree that
there's no reason Free Software should be difficult for non-programmers.

        Stefan

---

From: Byung-Hee HWANG <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2016 08:00:25 +0900

>there's no reason Free Software should be difficult for

OK Stefan. I have to say that i like you. Because you really love Free Software policy. However i cannot tell people to use Free Software. Free Software policy is too stric to keep. Instead, i tell poeple that open source software is useful and good. 

Anyway i respect Debian project, except Free Software policy. 

Sincerely,
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

---

From: Michael Lange <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 01:56:07 +0200

On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 08:00:25 +0900
Byung-Hee HWANG <[email-masked]> wrote:

> OK Stefan. I have to say that i like you. Because you really love Free
> Software policy. However i cannot tell people to use Free Software.
> Free Software policy is too stric to keep. Instead, i tell poeple that
> open source software is useful and good. 
> 

If I am not mistaken, K-9 Mail actually is free software, too :-)

Regards

Michael

.-.. .. ...- .   .-.. --- -. --.   .- -. -..   .--. .-. --- ... .--. . .-.

When a child is taught ... its programmed with simple instructions --
and at some point, if its mind develops properly, it exceeds the sum of
what it was taught, thinks independently.
		-- Dr. Richard Daystrom, "The Ultimate Computer",
		   stardate 4731.3.

---

From: Byung-Hee HWANG <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2016 12:42:04 +0900

>If I am not mistaken, K-9 Mail actually is free software, too :-)

Dear Stefan, deloptes and Michael,

My meant is that 100% rules/policy is not easy to keep for FSF-like Free Software by the definition. The base my mind is for FOSS things. Only in real life i have some trouble because my country Korea is still under MS-Windows softwares also my shop use Windows XP for work. 

Thanks!

---

From: Ben Finney <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2016 14:20:39 +1000

Byung-Hee HWANG <[email-masked]> writes:

> My meant is that 100% rules/policy is not easy to keep for FSF-like
> Free Software by the definition.

Your statement was that you did not think you could tell people to use
free software. Do you still think so? Why?

Do you believe “keep 100% rules/policy” is necessary for a person using
free software? What does that mean?

> Only in real life i have some trouble because my country Korea is
> still under MS-Windows softwares also my shop use Windows XP for work.

You have our sympathy :-) Please keep promoting use of free software,
even for people currently who are also using non-free software.

-- 
 \      “I like to fill my bathtub up with water, then turn the shower |
  `\       on and pretend I'm in a submarine that's been hit.” —Steven |
_o__)                                                           Wright |
Ben Finney

---

From: "Byung-Hee HWANG (황병희)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2016 21:56:11 +0900

Dear Ben,

Ben Finney <[email-masked]> 께서 쓰시길,

> free software? What does that mean?

It means just keeping for Free Software's duty is not easy in real life.  

> even for people currently who are also using non-free software.

Thanks, i will try it at Korea, really i am man for FOSS love.

---

From: Dan Purgert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 11:29:21 -0000 (UTC)

Ben Finney wrote:
> [snip]

I think he means he doesn't see the "you must use free software"
approach as the best for the general users.  This is at odds (AFAICT)
with Debian's stance on the matter.

-- 
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O|

---

From: "Byung-Hee HWANG (황병희)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2016 22:09:34 +0900

Dear Dan,

Dan Purgert <[email-masked]> 께서 쓰시길,

> with Debian's stance on the matter.

Yes, i did write some thought at general people's stance. 

Still in here my boss and co-workers use Windows XP. MS-Windows
softwares are the world for computing to them here in Korea, at least my
shop -- Korea KukAkSa, Seoul, South Korea.

However, i don't like these MS-Windows softwares.
Really it is not easy to communicate with these topics in real life.

Thanks for your comments, your time, indeed!

---

From: Darac Marjal <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 12:43:01 +0100

>with Debian's stance on the matter.

Debian's stance isn't "you must use free software" but rather "we can 
only distribute software we are allowed to". Debian does not forbid
people from installing software which they (the user) have permission to 
use but which they (Debian) does not have permission to distribute. The 
best-known example is Adobe's Flash Player. Debian does not have 
permission to distribute this. Users DO have permission to download and 
install it, though, so Debian provides a downloader/installer package 
which automates the user's actions.

This is where Debian differs from the "ideals" of the Free Software 
Foundation. If the FSF had their way, such tacit approval of Non-Free 
software would be banned. I'm surprised that Grub (A GNU program) deigns 
to load Windows :)

-- 
For more information, please reread.

---

From: "Byung-Hee HWANG (황병희)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2016 22:16:40 +0900

Hellow Darac!

Darac Marjal <[email-masked]> 께서 쓰시길,
 《記事 全文 <[email-masked]> 에서》:

> [...snip long lines...]
> Foundation. (...)

So i prefer Debian to FSF, thanks!

---

From: "Thomas Schmitt" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2016 15:14:31 +0200

Hi,

Darac Marjal wrote:
> I'm surprised that Grub (A GNU program) deigns to load Windows :)

If GNU can get people into using GNU software without giving up its
core values, then it normally does.
E.g. there is absolutely no ban on offering GNU software for proprietary
OSes.

The FSF does not force GNU programs to fully follow the political goals
of FSF. The programs shall, however, not work against those goals.
  https://www.gnu.org/help/evaluation.html

Distributing, advising, or easing installation of non-free software
is considered to be against the goals. On the other hand if GNU was
still waiting for The Hurd to become a usable kernel, then we all would
sit at M$ PCs and iMac polycarbonate sculptures.
So the FSF as a compromise promotes GNU/Linuxes which are a bit more
dogmatic than Debian:
  https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.en.html

The criticism against Debian is in
  https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html
Nevertheless there are several Debian people active in GNU packages.

General reasoning for FSF positions is collected in
  https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html

Have a nice day :)

Thomas

---

From: Cindy-Sue Causey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 09:39:14 -0400

>   https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html

THANK YOU! Good, quick, cognitively friendly read. Nice to be able to
note the other recognizable, popular distros likewise highlighted by
GNU.

Am surely showing my ignorance by saying this, but the appearance is
their objection to some of Debian might be easily fixable..... Maybe.
It taking additional monies, related resources to maintain comes first
to mind.

? :)

A potential user objection I was reading into in the last couple days
here.. Things could be "worse" to that end (depending on one's
viewpoint) if Debian became more stringent in order to get off GNU's
gnaughty list page there.

This is timely since I'm now battling both wifi and Bluetooth so I
just minutes ago tripped over the firmware-iwlwifi package in the
process. It's readily available in spite of my one-liner
/etc/apt/sources.list file.

That's compared to my remembering feeling really guilty installing the
same when I still had to track it down for a fully manual install
outside of a larger, much busier sources.list file a couple years ago.
Maybe that wasn't for Debian, though, or maybe I'm forgetting some
minor, very important detail from then. *grin*

Cindy :)

-- 
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA

* runs with plastic sporks *

---

From: "Thomas Schmitt" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2016 16:18:45 +0200

Hi,

(i maintain GNU xorriso but do not speak for GNU or FSF)

Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
> their objection to some of Debian might be easily fixable

The Debian position is that one should help people to install on
hardware of which the manufacturer imposed unsurpassable obstacles
for pure FSF-compliant systems.

Classic is the wireless hardware which you need to connect to the
internet in order to get the bulk of Debian packages. If Debian does
not provide the free-as-in-beer software blobs to drive the hardware,
or if Linux would not offer opportunities to attach such a software
blob, then the laptops in question would be reserved to proprietary
OSes.

It is a matter of policy priorities. So it can only be settled if one
side gives in despite believing to be right - or if the need for
free-beer-only blobs vanishes.

(The model is "free as in free beer" versus "free as in free speech".
 The owner may at any time close the beer tap, but nobody is entitled
 to forbid the continuation of chatter.)

> if Debian became more stringent in order to get off GNU's
> gnaughty list page there

Not really likely, i'd say.
We will stay on the grey list and will have to feel bad conscience
when making use of Debian's offer to help installing non-free software.

Ubuntu is one step further towards the beer tap. It aims at the
mindset of M$ and iMac users. Things have to "just work".
For that goal they are accused to sell little pieces of their souls.
(Only SteamOS will get a place nearer to the infernal fire.)

> firmware-iwlwifi package [...] remembering feeling really guilty

It's forgiven, now that you confessed publicly.

I hereby confess to still use xv.

Have a nice day :)

Thomas

---

From: deloptes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2016 01:17:36 +0200

> Anyway i respect Debian project, except Free Software policy.

LoL

---

From: Paul Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 08:48:21 -0500

> Free Software client for it.

For Android, there's Serval Mesh, available on Google Play and f-droid.org.
But depends on actually coming across a wifi hotspot with other serval
users connected at the same time you are to pass messages store-and-forward
style...

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 10:48:02 +0100

> amount of data and power this way.

Your initial query has received pretty full treatment and there appears
to be only one pure IM client suggested which fulfills your criteria,
which is TOX. However, you must have been doing your own research on
peer-to-peer IM clients and have come to some conclusion on whether they
are thick on the ground and whether there is one which suits you.
Perhaps you could summarise your findings for the list.

---

From: deloptes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 07:42:39 +0200

> amount of data and power this way.

South Korea - an example of democracy (irony off)

---

From: "Byung-Hee HWANG (황병희)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2016 22:37:58 +0900

deloptes <[email-masked]> 께서 쓰시길,
 《記事 全文 <[email-masked]> 에서》:

> [...]

OK. North Korea is "_Democratic_ People's Republic of Korea"
officially. Anyway, someday far later, we will do unify to one like as
Germany.

Sincerely,

---

From: "Amir H. Firouzian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:42:18 +0000

You can't have all the best together.
This mention in previous E-Mails as well. E.g: <20160817192400.GB9964@alum>

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> > I think you looking for TOX!
> > Visit TOX Project website:
> > https://tox.chat
>
> Thanks.  That does look promising (although I don't see any mention of
> reliable delivery),
>
>
>         Stefan
>
>
> > On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Stefan Monnier <
> [email-masked]>
> > wrote:
>

---

From: Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:05:36 -0400

> You can't have all the best together.

What does that mean, exactly?  Are you saying it doesn't have reliable
message delivery?  If so, that'd be a deal breaker for me.

        Stefan "shocked that anyone would want to design or use an
                unreliable messaging system"

---

From: "Amir H. Firouzian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 13:14:08 +0000

There is a trade off between decentralization & reliability. Traditional
E-Mail that people are talking about is NOT TRULY decentral.
For instance think about how E-Mail work:
1- Mail Client Query MX record from DNS
2- Connect to SMTP Server and Exchange E-Mail.
3- SMTP figure out the sender IP and look domain of E-Mail
3- SMTP server query SRV Record of that domain and check is that IP valid.
4- (Nowadays) SMTP query DKIM (Which is TXT record) and validate also.
So think how BITMESSAGE
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitmessage&oldid=734000991>:
1- The massage ONLY can access in TWO DAYS!
2- All Nodes have ALL E-Mail in Cryptic Form.

About you last sentence:
It's better that your message Not arrive instead of being disclose! and
This is the philosophy behind True P2P IM systems.
Regards

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:21:38 +0100

> 1- Mail Client Query MX record from DNS

IM systems don't do this too? What do they use? Telepathy?

> 2- Connect to SMTP Server and Exchange E-Mail.

Ok. That's unarguable.

> 3- SMTP figure out the sender IP and look domain of E-Mail

My server doesn't do that. I suppose I could instruct it to.

> 3- SMTP server query SRV Record of that domain and check is that IP valid.

My server doesn't do that. I suppose I could instruct it to.

> 4- (Nowadays) SMTP query DKIM (Which is TXT record) and validate also.

My server doesn't necessarily do that; it depends; I suppose I could
instruct it never to do it.

> 2- All Nodes have ALL E-Mail in Cryptic Form.

The link says

  Bitmessage is a decentralized, encrypted, peer-to-peer, trustless
  communications protocol that can be used by one person to send
  encrypted messages to another person, or to multiple subscribers.

How does this sound?

  Email is a decentralized, encrypted, peer-to-peer, trustless 
  communications protocol that can be used by one person to send 
  encrypted messages to another person, or to multiple subscribers.

> This is the philosophy behind True P2P IM systems.

It's a lousy philosophy. The purpose of communication systems is to
communicate reliably. I think you must have some special circumstances
in mind.

---

From: "Amir H. Firouzian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 20:34:07 +0000

> instruct it never to do it.
​*​
​My Point isn't how YOUR server work! This is how E-Mail providers does. ​

>   encrypted messages to another person, or to multiple subscribers.
​*​

​But there is completely ​

​different. First it isn't P2P; It's Server to Server. Second it base on
TRUST; You trust on E-Mail providers;
When you send message in traditional E-Mail your E-Mail provider know what
you send. The term that technical people said is "End-To-End Encryption" or
OTR (Off The Record).
Proton Email <https://protonmail.com/>
​already solve this problem.​
First Problem which named decentralization is more complex. Your E-Mail is
already going to some Server which is define by your E-Mail Address's
domain; We don't call it "Decentral". In BITMESSAGE your address is kind of
string that look like BITCOIN addresses. e.g:
1dice8EMZmqKvrGE4Qc9bUFf9PX3xaYD
​p
​ALL the message within two days are accessible for ALL People in
BITMESSAGE Net; But it's Cryptic and ONLY the TRUE Receiver which have the
Private Key of That Address can decrypt message. It's like someone send ALL
People something and you are the only person in world know how to open it
(Of Course if N Not Equal NP
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=P_versus_NP_problem&oldid=736074385>
&
HERE
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shor%27s_algorithm&oldid=736686926>)!
It's called "Asymmetric Encryption
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public-key_cryptography&oldid=736786168>
".

> ​*
My point isn't "We don't care about reliability" instead There are plenty
of research doing to make it more reliability; But it isn't our FIRST
Priority.
In addition being skeptical is very strong reason to use it.

---

From: Henning Follmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 09:46:00 -0400

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 01:14:08PM +0000, Amir H. Firouzian wrote:
[...]

> This is the philosophy behind True P2P IM systems.

Getting offtopic here. However, please elaborate why this is better?
Is there some fundamental law behind your rational?

-H

-- 
Henning Follmann           | [email-masked]

---

From: "Amir H. Firouzian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 18:12:36 +0000

It's not my point of view, It's P2P philosophy.
if you consider the project that try to collect Internet Informations; This
philosophy seems to be rational.

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Henning Follmann <[email-masked]

---

From: Henning Follmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:25:03 -0400

> It's not my point of view, It's P2P philosophy.
LOL, you really crack me up. P2P philosophy? Seriously?
Is that taught at some university? Can you have a P2PhD there?

> philosophy seems to be rational.

And this sentence doesn't even make sense.
What project?
And if there is a "project" how does the existence automatically imply that
it is the highest priority to prevent this from happening

PS.: Please don't top post. Especially not if someone already posted an
answer below.

-H

---

From: "Amir H. Firouzian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 18:21:22 +0000

> Is that taught at some university? Can you have a P2PhD there?

​* Go and visit MIT for CS (& wish that I will visit too!).
http://freehaven.net/
​

> ​* First, Sensation ​

​needs Informations
​
​. Second, N
owadays
 "Project" isn't so
secret
​!​

> ​* Excuse for that :)​

-H

---

From: Henning Follmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 15:07:47 -0400

> ​* Go and visit MIT for CS (& wish that I will visit too!).

Ok, that is ONE! P2P project which happen to have these values you claim
are universal to P2P in general. I am happy that you found an existing
project which aligns with your personal "philosophy" that however doesn't
make this universal to all P2P. So it is a personal opinion.

> > it is the highest priority to prevent this from happening
 Can you be more opaque?
What the hell are you talking about? And define how to come from the
existence of a "project" to come to a mandatory value hierachy.

-H

---

From: Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 09:44:01 -0400

> This is the philosophy behind True P2P IM systems.

Oh, I don't need 100% absolutely guaranteed delivery.

Just some reasonable expectation that messages won't be silently dropped
on the floor in fairly normal circumstances.

E.g. some email messages just don't get delivered, for instance because
they're misflagged as spam, but I still consider email as "reliable".

As a counter example, XMPP silently drops messages in various normal
circumstances, which XEP-0198 tries to address, similarly SIP tends to
drop messages on the floor if the destination is not currently
connected.  Another problem with XMPP is when you use several clients,
in which case not all clients will necessarily see all messages.

As another example, BitMessage's approach of keeping messages for
2 days, together with some way for the sender to know if the message has
been received, seems good enough.

        Stefan

---

From: David Wright <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 08:48:57 -0500

On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 09:05:36 (-0400), Stefan Monnier wrote:
> [...] Are you saying [TOX] doesn't have reliable

> on the floor in fairly normal circumstances.

Not knowing what the application is, it's difficult to do more than
throw a few suggestions into the ring (and have them shot down, to mix
metaphors).

I've seen things mentioned that I'd never heard of, like Astrachat,
AMQP, Protonmail, to mention but three. So it might be time to
weigh things up with a summary of what you've learned, and perhaps
to rank them on scales of reliability, centralisation, security, etc.

You appear to have enough requirements perhaps to think about using
two parallel systems in combination, as I suggested in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/08/msg00604.html
(which only addressed the online/offline problem).

> >> unreliable messaging system"

There are plenty of precendents: scratching on walls, tossing bottles
into the ocean, exporting golden records. Obviously EMI were convinced
that those records would be retrieved by someone within 100 years and
pirated, as they refused permission to export "Here Comes the Sun"
from the solar system.

Cheers,
David.

---

From: claude juif <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 10:23:00 +0200

> in which case not all clients will necessarily see all messages.

You can have a look at astrachat (http://www.astrachat.com/)

It's a XMPP client available on Linux, Android, IOS, and Windows.

> >> >> >> IIUC there is some XMPP features that allow such reliable
> delivery,
> >> but

---

From: Lisi Reisz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 14:52:14 +0100

On Tuesday 30 August 2016 14:05:36 Stefan Monnier wrote:
> "shocked that anyone would want to design or use an

Email is getting less and less reliable, so have you given up using it?? :-(

Lisi

---

From: Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 09:48:43 -0400

> Email is getting less and less reliable, so have you given up using it?? :-(

There's unreliable and there's unreliable.

In the XMPP world, the basic protocol will just send the message to the
destination over the existing TCP connection and won't care to check
for some kind of acknowledgment that the message was received.

In theory, the server could react to a TCP disconnect, but that won't
tell it which part of the stream was received and which wasn't, so in
practice, XMPP servers don't even care to check for a TCP disconnect
error in order to detect a possible message loss.

For SIP, in my experience, if I'm not connected when an SIP message comes
in, the SIP server just drops the message silently.

        Stefan

---

From: Curt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 16:37:55 +0000 (UTC)

> in, the SIP server just drops the message silently.

You might want to look into a sneakernet by Avian Carrier; not
instantaneous by any means, but tremendous throughput can be achieved
(latency remains high, however).

Waitzman's work on the matter was, as you might be aware, seminal:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1149

Good luck.

-- 
"I always say to people, ‘No one earns $100 million. You steal $100 million.’
People earn $10 an hour. People earn $40,000 a year. ‘Earn’ means work. Okay?
It doesn’t mean steal, which with these vast amounts of money, of course you
steal them." — Fran Lebowitz

---

From: Dan Purgert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 15:34:25 -0000 (UTC)

> Email is getting less and less reliable, so have you given up using it?? :-(
Email (according to the RFCs) wasn't ever intended to be /reliable/ in
the first place.  It just happens to work that way most of the time.

---

From: Lisi Reisz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 16:51:49 +0100

> the first place.  It just happens to work that way most of the time.

:-)  It is more reliable and quicker than snail-mail.  But it isn't reliable!!  
And is getting less so.

Lisi

---

From: deloptes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 19:50:21 +0200

Lisi Reisz wrote:

>> > Email is getting less and less reliable, so have you given up using
>> > it??
>> > :-(
>> >
>> > Lisi
>>
> :-)  It is more reliable and quicker than snail-mail.  But it isn't
> :reliable!!
> And is getting less so.
> 
> Lisi

I'm not sure I understand correctly. The whole concept of mailing is really
old and not fit for nowdays (mis)use of the internet. Since couple of years
there is initiative going on to implement dkim/spf (dmarc) which will help
reduce and overrule the abuses. Some of the bigger mail providers will
switch gradually to more strict policies as time goes on and we'll see it.
It just takes time.
About reliability - I have not seen recently undelivered mails (except
bounces between gmain and yahoo ... well, for obvious reasons, which is
understandable, taken the dmarc policy yahoo applies).
Technology is evolving sometime faster and sometime not, but still going
forward, so I am personally curios what the future will look like. For sure
the years we live in will be called the spam-era in the history books
dealing with e-mail.

Perhaps this question about "decentralized reliable instant messaging"
should be raised with some of the developers of instant messengers and it
can be implemented as a feature, despite the contradiction in the question
itself.
Thinking about Lizi's story and the postman ... where is in
the "decentralized" scenario the "postman", how does he look like ... etc.
Just a question of design and smart implementation.

I couldn't resist to share my opinion as well

regards

---

From: Lisi Reisz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 19:17:45 +0100

> bounces between gmain and yahoo .

Lucky you!

Lisi

---

From: deloptes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 08:27:51 +0200

>> bounces between gmain and yahoo .

Luck is something, that is out of scope in terms of software. Use authorized
SMTP servers. This means you can not install on your linux box an smtp
server, send an email and expect it to be delivered. If it is your
provider, change it or talk to them. It is not common that messages are
rated as spam, when they come out from legal MX records. As I said DMARC
initiative is going on at the moment (and since couple of years) and it
will affect the mailing in positive way I hope.

regards

---

From: Lisi Reisz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 10:42:25 +0100

On Wednesday 31 August 2016 07:27:51 deloptes wrote:
> Use authorized
> SMTP servers.

mailhost.zen.co.uk
https://www.zen.co.uk/

As I said, lucky you.

Lisi

---

From: Joe <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 08:48:05 +0100

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 08:27:51 +0200
deloptes <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Lisi Reisz wrote:
> 
> >   
> >> About reliability - I have not seen recently undelivered mails
> >> (except bounces between gmain and yahoo .  
> > 
> > Lucky you!
> > 
> > Lisi  
> 
> Luck is something, that is out of scope in terms of software. Use
> authorized SMTP servers.

Who authorises them, if not the owner of the domain? Should our
governments expect to be paid for email server licences?

> This means you can not install on your linux
> box an smtp server, send an email and expect it to be delivered.

I have done so, for about fifteen years. I like it that way.

> If
> it is your provider, change it or talk to them. It is not common that
> messages are rated as spam, when they come out from legal MX records.

The MX record is not involved in sending. Many companies outsource
their anti-spamming, or for other reasons use completely different
sending and receiving servers.

What you need are complementary domain host A record and IP address
PTR records, pointing to each other, along with an ISP which doesn't
host bulk emailers and is otherwise willing to keep itself off
blacklists.

> As I said DMARC initiative is going on at the moment (and since
> couple of years) and it will affect the mailing in positive way I
> hope.

The main problem with anything like that is that many people have
relatively complex email arrangements, e.g. forwarding from a number of
email addresses to another, and these tend to get broken by security
measures. A couple of years ago my ISP, who had provided email services
based on sub-domains, outsourced them to an Exchange-based system using
the MS SPF system. I don't use the provided sub-domain, so it didn't
involve me, but there was a lot of trouble about it, and eventually the
ISP grudgingly provided another pair of MX records for a SMTP server
which did not implement this system.

Email is still a useful messaging protocol, it is somewhat broken, but
the cure absolutely must not be worse than the disease, or we'll all
end up using Facebook.

-- 
Joe

---

From: deloptes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 21:11:24 +0200

> deloptes <[email-masked]> wrote:

Sorry for not being able to answer earlier. There are some points here that
need to be emphasized.

> governments expect to be paid for email server licences?

No one authorizes them, but they are free to accept or reject the
communication with you. The same way that you may reject communication with
others

> I have done so, for about fifteen years. I like it that way.

There are surely way to do this, but in conjunction to the above it boils
down to trust. Trust is fundamental to interaction of any kind.

> host bulk emailers and is otherwise willing to keep itself off

Yes agreed MX was wrongly stated here by me.

> which did not implement this system.

... and the SPF was configured by default ("next" > "next" style) ... come
on ...

The problem is trust and trust must be established, perhaps in 5y we'll see
another way of mail communication. I do not follow the future that closely,
but for now DMARC seems to be the only way most of the communities and
companies take. I recently got involved into DMARC related project and it
sounds at least promissing.

> the cure absolutely must not be worse than the disease, or we'll all

It is not broken - the design just gets abused too often.

regards

---

From: claude juif <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 10:54:53 +0200

Hi,

Come on guys, the OP ask about instant messaging and mail is everything
except instant messaging.

IRC with recording bot could do the job. (But it's clearly old and kind of
hard to setup)

By the way, you could make a simple app based on AMQP protocol to fit your
need.

Regards,

Le 31 août 2016 9:48 AM, "Joe" <[email-masked]> a écrit :

--
Joe

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 13:31:16 +0100

> except instant messaging.

With two machines running mail servers (no smarthosts or any of that
nonsense) the messaging is virtually instantaneous. The protocol used
has a good track record and is reliable and robust. It might not suit
what the OP or his respondents want but the bits and pieces to build
such a system are all in Debian.

If one machine is down a secondary MX should take up the slack and
deliver the message when it comes back online.

---

From: claude juif <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 10:32:35 +0200

> such a system are all in Debian.

Yep but it will depend on the number of messages (and their rate) sent.
Virtually instantaneous for 2 people, but for 500 ?

In France we rely heavily on centralised messaging system like Hipchat, or
Slack.

In the old day, we used bonjour (Apple protocol) for instant messaging with
pidgin. Works great but not reliable.

---

From: Lisi Reisz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 19:16:10 +0100

On Tuesday 30 August 2016 18:50:21 deloptes wrote:
> I have not seen recently undelivered mails

Lucky you!

[had to snip quotation from rejecting notification because Zen identified the 
email as spam!!]

So one large and dominating ISP is rejecting emails from an inconvenient, 
smaller, rival because there are "too many" of them.

It was eventually delivered after 4 days, but I had by then sent it again via 
Gmail's server.

As I say, lucky you!!!

Lisi

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 19:51:39 +0100

> > I have not seen recently undelivered mails

Not luck, it's good management. Receiving SMTP servers accept messages
which are RFC compliant. If they do not they are playing silly buggers.
Have you ever had a message rejected on the grounds it was not RFC
compliant? If so (and you are using a smarthost) you need to have words
with your ISP.

> [had to snip quotation from rejecting notification because Zen identified the 

Don't really follow this. But you allow Zen to determine the nature of
your mails? You also give Royal Mail permission to open and peruse the
letters you send and receive?

> smaller, rival because there are "too many" of them.

Don't follow this either.

---

From: Lisi Reisz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 21:19:00 +0100

> Don't follow this either.

Because I had to snip the error message.  I'll try reporting non-verbatim 
indirect speech rather than the quotation from the rejection, and see if I am 
allowed to send it.

BT rejected, once a day for several days (which was how often Zen went on 
trying to send it), an email I had sent my stepdaughter; on the grounds that 
it had had too many messages from Zen's SMTP server.  (Which it mentioned by 
IP, not name.)

And it is because that sounds so incredible that I tried to send the verbatim 
message.

Lisi

---

From: Lisi Reisz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 21:13:35 +0100

On Tuesday 30 August 2016 19:51:39 Brian wrote:
> But you allow Zen to determine the nature of
> your mails?

Since I haven't got my own server I have no choice but to accept it if 
whatever SMTP server I am using simply rejects the email and refuses to send 
it.  This is the first time it has happened.

Lisi

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:59:16 +0100

> the "decentralized" scenario the "postman", how does he look like ... etc.

He looks just like you.

---

From: Henning Follmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:59:42 -0400

> Email is getting less and less reliable, so have you given up using it?? :-(

However, why email is still reliable, because a proper setup provides you
with a well defined error messages (in case it is not delivered).

The fact that a lot of mail ends up in places where they are never looked
at is a social issue not a technical one.

-H

---

From: Joe <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:49:34 +0100

On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:59:42 -0400
Henning Follmann <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > it?? :-(
> However, why email is still reliable, because a proper setup provides
> you with a well defined error messages (in case it is not delivered).
> 

If an email is designated as spam, it will be *silently* dropped. It
took mail admins a long time to realise that if a message was spam, the
last thing they should do with it is to 'return' it to the apparent
'sender' as part of a bounce message.

-- 
Joe

---

From: Henning Follmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 15:05:02 -0400

> 'sender' as part of a bounce message.

You have a much too simplistic view of todays anti-spam measures.

If an smtp server tries to deliver a messages, usually the first the
receiving server does, during the helo, checking if the sending server is
blacklisted. If blacklisted any attempt to deliver any mail will be denied
and the sender will receive a proper 5XX error message.

If the initial test passes though and the mail is accepted the mail has
been "reliably" delivered. If any additional filter decide that this is
spam then -again- we are dealing with an technical solution to a social
problem.
Still e-mail is fairly reliable. 
The issue as always is the overcommunication inflation which pretty much
created the current situation. Finetuning the system to avoid fals
positives while minimizing spam is an art.

My current biggest pet peeve is that people are so distracted that they
don't even read an email longer than 2 sentences (or 160 characters for our
twitter friends)

-H

---

From: Joe <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 21:03:47 +0100

On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 15:05:02 -0400
Henning Follmann <[email-masked]> wrote:

> receiving server does, during the helo, checking if the sending
> server is blacklisted. If blacklisted any attempt to deliver any mail
> will be denied and the sender will receive a proper 5XX error message.

Yes, certainly, though a check of the sending IP DNS and a complete list
of valid recipients stop a lot more spam than my blacklists do. Even
requiring a thirty-second timeout stops a lot, no legitimate mail
server minds waiting that long.

> 
> If the initial test passes though and the mail is accepted the mail
> has been "reliably" delivered. If any additional filter decide that
> this is spam then -again- we are dealing with an technical solution
> to a social problem.

The social problem of the existence of thieves and idiot marketing
people. I suspect a social solution to this social problem will not
come in my lifetime.

> The issue as always is the overcommunication inflation which pretty
> much created the current situation. Finetuning the system to avoid
> fals positives while minimizing spam is an art.

Indeed, which is why I pretty well gave up on content analysis. My
usual email client dumps a few really egregious subjects, but otherwise
I rely on a well-trained mail server. The email address above is
genuine, and has been used on Usenet and various web-published forums
for more than eighteen years, and still only about half a dozen spams a
day make it to my mailbox. But things are improving, I only reject
about a hundred a day, and ten years ago it averaged more than a
thousand a day. My record was more than twelve thousand...

-- 
Joe

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 20:42:05 +0100

> and the sender will receive a proper 5XX error message.

  brian@desktop:~$ telnet itcfollmann.com 25
  Trying 96.242.112.3...
  Connected to itcfollmann.com.
  Escape character is '^]'.
  220 newton.itcfollmann.com ESMTP Postfix (Debian/GNU)
  helo spammershaven.com
  250 newton.itcfollmann.com
  mail from:[email-masked]
  250 2.1.0 Ok
  rcpt to:[email-masked]
  450 4.2.0 <[email-masked]>: Recipient address rejected: Greylisted, see http://postgrey.schweikert.ch/help/itcfollmann.com.html

I don't really want to go to the data command or go through this
greylisting business but the helo command seems acceptable to your
server.

---

From: Joe <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 21:23:50 +0100

On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 20:42:05 +0100
Brian <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > > > However, why email is still reliable, because a proper setup
> > > > provides you with a well defined error messages (in case it is
> > > > not delivered). 
> > > 
> > > If an email is designated as spam, it will be *silently* dropped.
> > > It took mail admins a long time to realise that if a message was
> > > spam, the last thing they should do with it is to 'return' it to
> > > the apparent 'sender' as part of a bounce message.
> > >   
> > 
> > server is blacklisted. If blacklisted any attempt to deliver any
> > mail will be denied and the sender will receive a proper 5XX error
> > message.  
> 
>   450 4.2.0 <[email-masked]>: Recipient address rejected:
> Greylisted, see
> http://postgrey.schweikert.ch/help/itcfollmann.com.html
> 

It's a while since I did the telnet thing in anger, but I used to use a
well-known (in the UK) six-character helo to save typing. No server ever
pointed out to me that my mail-from had no connection with it. Many
servers will reject a non-existent helo hostname.

As you probably know, but others might not, it is recommended to reject
the mail at the Recipient stage even when the problem is something else
entirely. It's not likely to have been the helo here, as the result of
failure would probably not have been a greylisting. Some systems are
configured to greylist any previously-unknown sender, no matter how
squeaky-clean they are otherwise.

I don't know if that is true here, as I might gently point out the the
URL given does not work.

-- 
Joe

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:53:35 +0100

> 'sender' as part of a bounce message.

It is taking users a much, much longer time to realise that mail admins
are making decisions to drop mail which is intended for them (very often
without being involved in the choice). Now, if the postal service did
this....

---

From: Joe <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 20:42:42 +0100

On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:53:35 +0100
Brian <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > took mail admins a long time to realise that if a message was spam,
> > the last thing they should do with it is to 'return' it to the
> > apparent 'sender' as part of a bounce message.  
> 
> It is taking users a much, much longer time to realise that mail
> admins are making decisions to drop mail which is intended for them
> (very often without being involved in the choice). Now, if the postal
> service did this....
> 

Are you advocating 'returning' spam emails to innocent third parties?
Silently dropping would seem to be the lesser of current evils.

But emails are not expected to be reliable today. Even apart from false
spam positives, a broken server can eat email, or delay it during
periods of heavy load. Someone sending urgent data by email will confirm
its arrival using a telephone.

-- 
Joe

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 22:42:07 +0100

> Silently dropping would seem to be the lesser of current evils.

Not at all. I was shifting the focus of the discussion. If users
are willing to accept that ISPs have the right to drop mails on
some arbitrary whim it is no wonder email can be seen as unreliable.

> its arrival using a telephone.

100% of the mails I have sent arrived at their destination. That is what
I would call reliable. Any delays in the recipient getting the mail (or
the mail being or dropped) are the responsibility of someone else. The
postal system works in the same way. Nothing is perfect.

---

From: David Wright <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 11:18:10 -0500

> with a well defined error messages (in case it is not delivered).

There are occasions when this is several days later, unfortunately.
Some of the retry intervals seem to have been set in the days when
people/institutions dialled up the internet on a daily schedule.

> at is a social issue not a technical one.

The unreliability of email is also overreported by people
whose homework, years earlier, was eaten by their dog.

Cheers,
David.

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:45:34 +0100

> people/institutions dialled up the internet on a daily schedule.

I think you have moved from unreliability (whatever that means) to
timeliness of delivery. If you put your mail under the control of
a third party you presumably accept their conditions. Anyway, what,
without drowning the internet in frequent retries, would be suitable
as a sequence of retry intervals? Exim on Debian uses

 # This single retry rule applies to all domains and all errors. It specifies
 # retries every 15 minutes for 2 hours, then increasing retry intervals,
 # starting at 1 hour and increasing each time by a factor of 1.5, up to 16
 # hours, then retries every 6 hours until 4 days have passed since the first
 # failed delivery.

> whose homework, years earlier, was eaten by their dog.

The canine community must feel relief that the canard has been placed
elsewhere.

---

From: David Wright <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 14:36:05 -0500

>  # hours, then retries every 6 hours until 4 days have passed since the first

Much of that is reasonable, but I think (without any evidence) that
most people would prefer to receive a message of abandonment after
16 hours (perhaps only six) rather that sit on their hands for
four days.

For comparison, look at the time people here wait for a posting to
appear before submitting a second try, and a third...

Cheers,
David.

---

From: Lisi Reisz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 19:31:08 +0100

Just out of interest, why have you sent a personal copy of a reply to the 
Debian list about an email of David Wright's to me, which is an irrelevant 
flouting of the code of conduct rules??? ;-)  It's not like you Brian to make 
Human Errors. ;-)

Lisi

I tried to send this to you personally, by both routes readily available to 
me, but your email set-up kept rejecting it.  So here is my (mild) protest 
publicly. ;-)

On Tuesday 30 August 2016 18:45:34 Brian wrote:
>  # This single retry rule applies to all domains and all errors. It
> specifies # retries every 15 minutes for 2 hours, then increasing retry
> intervals, # starting at 1 hour and increasing each time by a factor of
> 1.5, up to 16 # hours, then retries every 6 hours until 4 days have passed
> since the first # failed delivery.
>
> > > The fact that a lot of mail ends up in places where they are never
> > > looked at is a social issue not a technical one.
> >

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 20:26:45 +0100

> flouting of the code of conduct rules??? ;-)  It's not like you Brian to make 

So I did. Apologies.

I make errors all the time; I just fight a good rearguard action. :) But
not this time; surrender is the honorable course of action.

2016-08-30 18:45:35 1ben6M-0008JJ-JK => [email-masked] R=dnslookup T=remote_smtp H=gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com [64.233.167.26] X=TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128 DN="C=US,ST=California,L=Mountain View,O=Google Inc,CN=mx.google.com" C="250 2.0.0 OK 1472579135 u10si39132321wje.183 - gsmtp"
2016-08-30 18:45:50 1ben6M-0008JJ-JK => [email-masked] R=dnslookup T=remote_smtp H=bendel.debian.org [82.195.75.100] X=TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128 DN="C=NA,ST=NA,L=Ankh Morpork,O=Debian SMTP,OU=Debian SMTP CA,CN=bendel.debian.org,EMAIL=[email-masked]" C="250 2.0.0 Ok: queued as 147DD63"
2016-08-30 18:45:50 1ben6M-0008JJ-JK Completed

I must have hit "r" or "g" in mutt. Damn these two bottles of wine. :)

> me, but your email set-up kept rejecting it.  So here is my (mild) protest 

What were the two readily available routes open to you? Which addresses?

---

From: David Wright <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:22:34 -0500

> I must have hit "r" or "g" in mutt. Damn these two bottles of wine. :)

The error might have been mine. I think I CC'd Lisi in error.
The other list I'm on expects people to group-reply.
I forgot myself. Sorry if I caused confusion by appearing
to send a personal email when it was public (if this is all
about <20160830161810.GA8604@alum>).

> What were the two readily available routes open to you? Which addresses?

I, too, have failed to email you, Brian, on one occasion recently.
I used just the email address that is normally in your From: header.

Cheers,
David.

---

From: Nicolas George <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 16:10:37 +0200

Le quartidi 14 fructidor, an CCXXIV, David Wright a écrit :
> I forgot myself.

Systematic group-reply is the correct way of using mailing-lists, because it
is the only way that does not require the user to waste time for each mail
deciding the proper key to hit.

This clause of the code of conduct is unsustainable, and therefore should be
ignored until the configuration is fixed and the corresponding clause
updated.

In the meantime, let the whiners whine; the non-whiners can unilaterally fix
things for themselves by setting the reply-to header, just like you or me.

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George

---

From: David Wright <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 14:23:01 -0500

> > The other list I'm on expects people to group-reply.

After some experiments, I think I have to withdraw that explanation.
Group-reply would have put
    To: Lisi ..., [email-masked]
whereas my posting had
    To: [email-masked]
    Cc: Lisi ...
which is what list-reply writes¹.

In fact, the problem was that the posting I replied to had
    Mail-Followup-To: Lisi ..., [email-masked]
in the header, which mutt dutifully obeyed *and* copied into my reply.
I might have spotted that Lisi was CC'd, but the copying of
Mail-Followup-To into my posting happens behind the scenes,
like handling References.

I suppose I could set a blank Mail-Followup-To in my composition
editor to prevent its auto-generation. (I don't do anything
sophisticated like posting to multiple lists.) But that might defeat
people who use Mail-Followup-To as a way of receiving replies without
being subscribed to the list, so maybe that's not a good idea.

> things for themselves by setting the reply-to header, just like you or me.

Yes, I can't understand why more people don't set it.

In the dim and distant past, I put
:0 Wh: $HOME/msgid.lock
| formail -D 199999 $HOME/msgid.cache
into my .procmailrc file which got rid of any duplicates.

¹ only when replying to that particular posting of course.

Cheers,
David.

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 19:48:29 +0100

> in the header, which mutt dutifully obeyed *and* copied into my reply.

You were also a victim, like me. The source of the infection remains at
large and is still active.

> like handling References.

Does "ask-no" help? Or going the whole hog with "no"?

> being subscribed to the list, so maybe that's not a good idea.

Of the approximately 14,000 mails in my -user archive about 1000 have a
MFT header. Out of that 1000 the vast majority designate [email-masked] as
the only place where the mail should go to. About 10 have a user's 
address only; 0.1%. Decision time.
 
> Yes, I can't understand why more people don't set it.

Try harder :).

-- 
Brian.

Not a whiner but happy with "L", "r" and "g" in Mutt.

---

From: Mark Fletcher <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 14:45:42 +0000

> ignored until the configuration is fixed and the corresponding clause
By participating in this list you implicitly agree to abide by the code of
conduct; authority is not granted to you to decide which parts of it you
will abide by and which not.

You're in compliance by doing something not everyone agrees with but which
looks harmless to me. The result is that when I hit Reply-all to this
thread, my mail client automatically replied only to the list. Well and
good -- actually, very good, because it prevents me making the stupid
mistake I frequently make of cc-ing the poster of the mail I am replying
to. So no arguments with your chosen actions from me. But I don't
particularly wish to hear you advocating for ignoring the code of conduct,
or any part of it, any more, and I very much doubt I am alone.

Mark

---

From: Curt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 16:01:36 +0000 (UTC)

> will abide by and which not.

How about postings in HTML as a case in point of egregious violation?

---

From: Lisi Reisz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 17:12:43 +0100

On Wednesday 31 August 2016 17:01:36 Curt wrote:
> > By participating in this list you implicitly agree to abide by the code
> > of conduct; authority is not granted to you to decide which parts of it
> > you will abide by and which not.
>

Purely factually, it was in multipart-alternative.  I hadn't even noticed that my nice plain text display was attched to the possibility of displaying HTML.

Lisi

---

From: Curt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 16:45:07 +0000 (UTC)

> Purely factually, it was in multipart-alternative.  I hadn't even noticed that my nice plain text display was attched to the possibility of displaying HTML.

And purely factually he posted in HTML as well as text, the former being a
violation, as is your own post in which you did not wrap your lines.

---

From: Lisi Reisz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:16:07 +0100

On Wednesday 31 August 2016 17:45:07 Curt wrote:
> as is your own post in which you did not wrap your lines.

Does everyone else agree with this?  They are displaying wrapped for me, and 
the setting requires them to wrap and is still set to column 78.  (I have 
just checked.)  If they are not wrapping for the rest of you, then this is a 
bug which needs pursuing.

Lisi

---

From: Curt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 18:40:18 +0000 (UTC)

> bug which needs pursuing.

https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/08/msg01039.html

---

From: Lisi Reisz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 22:02:03 +0100

On Wednesday 31 August 2016 19:40:18 Curt wrote:
> > Does everyone else agree with this?  They are displaying wrapped for me,
> > and the setting requires them to wrap and is still set to column 78.  (I
> > have just checked.)  If they are not wrapping for the rest of you, then
> > this is a bug which needs pursuing.
>

But:

https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/[email-masked]
and even:
https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/[email-masked]

There was obviously something wrong with that particular one.  Thunderstorm??  
Pixies??

Lisi

---

From: Lisi Reisz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 17:31:00 +0100

On Wednesday 31 August 2016 17:12:43 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> Purely factually, it was in multipart-alternative.  I hadn't even noticed
> that my nice plain text display was attched to the possibility of
> displaying HTML.
>
> Lisi

And I did try to check - unsuccessfully, sorry :-(  :-( -  that my email 
client hadn't followed suit.  It is the one serious weakness of KMail-Trinity 
that it sometimes copies HTML, when it has not displayed it in a way that 
meant  that one knew that it was there.

I hope that I have succeeded in getting rid of it this time.

Lisi

---

From: Lisi Reisz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 16:31:18 +0100

On Wednesday 31 August 2016 15:45:42 Mark Fletcher wrote:
> Well and
> to.

But it doesn't prevent Nicolas from deliberately cc-ing most of the rest of us 
when replying to our mails; which is exceedingly annoying and is NOT in 
compliance with the CoC.

It is, of course, and annoyance one can easily avoid by blacklisting him.

Lisi

---

From: Gene Heskett <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 14:08:36 -0400

On Wednesday 31 August 2016 11:31:18 Lisi Reisz wrote:

> > good -- actually, very good, because it prevents me making the
> > stupid mistake I frequently make of cc-ing the poster of the mail I
> > am replying to.
>
> But it doesn't prevent Nicolas from deliberately cc-ing most of the
> rest of us when replying to our mails; which is exceedingly annoying
> and is NOT in compliance with the CoC.
>

I do not know if its CoC correct, but my copy of kmail, courtesy the 
Trinity people, shows that a "reply-to-list", goes only to the list, 
while a "reply-all" goes to the list, and CC's the poster, in this case 
Lisi.

And a simple reply says only to the list.  That seems odd as it should 
reply to Lisi.  Something in the list headers apparently makes the list 
address a higher priority.  So I use reply-all, then nuke the list 
address by hand, and change the  Cc: line to a To: line if I want to PM 
Lisi.

This works for me, and I am rarely chided about it. I would much druther 
the reply-all kept track of the posters involved in the thread and CC'd 
them if I click on the reply-all button, but that would be a memory 
eating monster of a headache for kmail. FWIW, I turn off kmails thread 
follower long ago, so I see them in their order of arrival here.

Those who missed a reply with valuable info in it because they aren't 
subscribed, expecting to be Cc'd for that whole thread, should 
subscribe, problem solved.

If our Mr. George were to use an email agent that did observe a similar 
protocol, that would stand a good chance of shutting down threads such 
as this one.

Have a great day everyone. My coffee pot had the audacity to run dry, so 
I said a few magic incantations over it, and its now refilling itself.

Then I'll go see whats wrong with a tapered thread cutting program I am 
in the middle of writing a universal version of in g-code (rs-274 std).  
Once that has been done, then I need to find a plastic pan big enough to 
hold this part covered in distilled water, and cut, using edm, three 
slots at 60 degree angles so the part will have 6 fingers that a 
similarly tapered nut I'll have to make, will screw onto, crushing those 
fingers into a no slip grip on the end of a ball screw, even with half a 
ton or more of push or pull is exerted on the screw. Fun & games when I 
win, and it keeps me out of the bars to boot!

I should probably get a life, I have so far, outlived this one. :)

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

---

From: David Wright <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 14:56:11 -0500

> while a "reply-all" goes to the list, and CC's the poster, in this case 

That's very odd. A reply to some entity should go To: them. Cc: is a
carbon copy for someone who is not being replied to.

> address by hand, and change the  Cc: line to a To: line if I want to PM 

You ought not to have to promote an address in that way when you reply-ALL.

> protocol, that would stand a good chance of shutting down threads such 

But that would be breaking a perfectly good MUA.

The problem boils down to somebody adding addresses to Mail-Followup-To,
which has a worse effect that just CCing people when replying to d-u,
something that people already moan about. I already defend myself
against the latter with Reply-To: set to the list. Now it appears
I have to defend myself against committing the former by dropping
Mail-Followup-To. Unfortunately mutt cannot divine whether an address
in a received Mail-Followup-To was put there by the unsubscribed
owner, or gratuitously by someone else. It either passes them all
along, or drops them all, AFAICT.

Cheers,
David.

---

From: Nicolas George <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 17:36:16 +0200

> when replying to our mails; which is exceedingly annoying and is NOT in 

I do not "deliberately" cc anyone most of the time, I just obey the messages
headers. You can set up the messages headers to avoid receiving the
extraneous copies from anyone, including me, with a simple configuration
option that I have already explained, to you personally.

Not following advice is of course your absolute right.

> It is, of course, and annoyance one can easily avoid by blacklisting him.

Indeed. Please feel free to blacklist anyone.

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 00:34:47 +0100

> about <20160830161810.GA8604@alum>).

The cavalry arrives - but hours late :); I should have stuck to my
rearguard policy. But thanks for the intervention. It turns out I did
hit "L" and not "r" or "g".

Additionally, I have learned a little more about mutt's behaviour.

 <list-reply> (default: L)

    Reply to the current or tagged message(s) by extracting any addresses which
    match the regular expressions given by the lists or subscribe commands, but
    also honor any Mail-Followup-To header(s) if the $honor_followup_to
    configuration variable is set. In addition, the List-Post header field is
    examined for mailto: URLs specifying a mailing list address. Using this
    when replying to messages posted to mailing lists helps avoid duplicate
    copies being sent to the author of the message you are replying to.

Your mail had a Mail-Followup-To header to debian-user and Lisi Reisz. I
think it was this rather than the Cc that got me a telling off.

> I used just the email address that is normally in your From: header.

The address is valid and one I am entitled to use. However, it looks
like my ISP has fouled something up and rendered it useless. I'll have
to have a think about what to do about this.

Meanwhile, if it is something urgent (like giving me money), my other
mail headers provide a working address.

---

From: David Wright <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 15:04:26 -0500

> think it was this rather than the Cc that got me a telling off.

You got there a lot faster than I did. Presumably you don't/didn't
have any special treatment of followup_to and honor_followup_to in
your .muttrc file.

It would appear to me that it's only polite for someone to add their
*own* address to any Mail-Followup-To header (apart from list addresses
of course) so that they receive replies-to-replies (which a simple
Reply-To header wouldn't achieve).

Otherwise it acts a bit like an email-bomb, doesn't it?

Cheers,
David.

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 11:01:46 +0100

> have any special treatment of followup_to and honor_followup_to in

I decided many years ago that 'set followup_to=yes' didn't do anything
for me. What I hadn't realised is that the combination of the default
honor_followup_to and pressing 'L' could lead to a CC'ing-by-proxy chain
of events.

---

From: Lisi Reisz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 00:50:52 +0100

> to have a think about what to do about this.

Sorry, Brian.  I continued to misunderstand your question.  I just used "reply 
to sender", so it went (or failed to go) to the address on the top:
Brian <[email-masked]> 

Lisi

---

From: Lisi Reisz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 22:09:51 +0100

On Tuesday 30 August 2016 20:26:45 Brian wrote:
> > I tried to send this to you personally, by both routes readily available
> > to me, but your email set-up kept rejecting it.  So here is my (mild)
> > protest publicly. ;-)
>

I didn't try terribly hard!  I just used my usual: if one SMTP server is 
rejected (Zen), try the other one (Gmail), then gave up.  Had it been 
important I would obviously have persevered a bit more.

Lisi

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 22:24:04 +0100

> important I would obviously have persevered a bit more.

I meant: what email address did you use to try to contact me?

---

From: Lisi Reisz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 00:43:27 +0100

On Tuesday 30 August 2016 22:24:04 Brian wrote:
> > > > I tried to send this to you personally, by both routes readily
> > > > available to me, but your email set-up kept rejecting it.  So here is
> > > > my (mild) protest publicly. ;-)
> > >

[email-masked]

---

From: Lisi Reisz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:33:57 +0100

> whose homework, years earlier, was eaten by their dog.

Years ago I sent a Guaranteed Delivery Letter to our local Council.  They 
claimed not to have received it.  As it was very important, I followed it up.  
The area Postmaster, who was tired of being accused of not delivering things 
his staff had delivered, was very co-operative.

With his help, I proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the letter was 
delivered, and delivered on time.

The Council spokesperson said that I had proved that an envelope had been 
delivered to them, but I had not proved that there was anything in the 
envelope.

Lisi

---

From: Gene Heskett <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:30:48 -0400

On Tuesday 30 August 2016 12:33:57 Lisi Reisz wrote:

> Years ago I sent a Guaranteed Delivery Letter to our local Council. 
> They claimed not to have received it.  As it was very important, I
> followed it up. The area Postmaster, who was tired of being accused of
> not delivering things his staff had delivered, was very co-operative.
>
> With his help, I proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the letter
> was delivered, and delivered on time.
>
> The Council spokesperson said that I had proved that an envelope had
> been delivered to them, but I had not proved that there was anything
> in the envelope.
>
> Lisi

I admire your reserve, for not testing to see how much phosgene gas you 
could have gotten out of his Teflon suit by overheating it, with him in 
it of course.  Can I assume he did not get your vote the next time he 
stood for that council chair...

Cheers, Gene Heskett

---

From: Gene Heskett <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 10:58:36 -0400

> looked at is a social issue not a technical one.

True, Henning, but forced on us by the sheer volume of spam we need to 
protect ourselves from. But when some idiot sends me a 100% html 
message, with 3 or more url's buried in the html, with a Dear Friend 
greeting, he should NOT be amazed that it gets a 5+ rating from 
spamassassin, and sorted accordingly.

The offender of course is not subbed to any of these mailing lists, so 
he/she gets zero feedback and are too far away to hear my muttering 
about it, but I do business thru ebay with him, once in 10 years.

ebay themselves very carefully fine tunes their crap, always hitting 
exactly 5.0 from spamassassin. But you put up with that from ebay 
because they are the worlds defacto dept. store and have been for years 
despite Jeff B's best efforts at amazon.

Amazon costs too much, and has yet to meet the promised delivery date 
since I'm at least 150 miles from west bumf--- here in north central WV, 
USA.  Thats my choice, here I am often the big frog in this tiny puddle 
of a county seat village.  I have to admit I enjoy that. But it often 
means that my connection to the educated world looks a lot like a cat5 
cable. :)

Cheers, Gene Heskett

---

From: Dan Purgert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 15:37:22 -0000 (UTC)

> despite Jeff B's best efforts at amazon.

5.0 gets sent to /dev/null here ... along with anything else above 4.4,
and that's only after they make it through the maze of greylist rules to
even get to spamassassin :)

---

From: Lisi Reisz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 15:09:28 +0100

> with a well defined error messages (in case it is not delivered).

We have different definitions of reliable!!  Being told a day or two later 
that your email didn't get there because .. is very little consolation, if 
you actually wanted it to get there, and that is only if the receiving SMTP 
server returns the email with an error message, and doesn't just drop it.

Lisi

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 19:24:45 +0100

> server returns the email with an error message, and doesn't just drop it.

You could send mail directly if you set up a mail server.

However, if you are bothered about the receiving SMTP server accepting
and dropping the message it wouldn't matter because you wouldn't get
any feedback. But you wouldn't get feedback using your ISP's smarthost.