[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] Emails being tagged as spam -- NMH solution???

From: Bob Carragher
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] Emails being tagged as spam -- NMH solution???
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 13:06:21 -0800

The saga is not yet over.  One domain in particular, @stanford.edu,
is now tagging my emails even more strongly as spam.  I'm seeing
replies from folks there with the Subject: line changed to:

     Re: [SPAM:#####] <original-subject>

with the number of "#"s indicating how strongly the tagging is.
(This had happened previously, but the number of "#"s never
exceeded 3.) Also, their list servers are now silently rejecting
my posts, whereas that had never occurred previously.  (If I
switch back to using sendmail, then the posts go through to the
mailing lists.)

I'm asking people I'm emailing to forward me copies of my
messages, hoping the headers contain clues.  Any suggestions from
the folks here would be greatly appreciated!

On Sun, 01 Mar 2015 22:27:56 -0500 Ken Hornstein <address@hidden> sez:

> To follow up a bit ...
> >I checked my install notes, and I didn't note performing any
> >configure steps.  I simply apt-get-ed the package (I'm running
> >Ubuntu 13.10 -- yes, I'm REALLY behind B-), and then did the same
> >for sendmail (which is not installed by default).  The latter
> >action may have switched things in mts.conf.
> Hm, I guess that decision was made by whoever created that package.
> In that case, sendmail should have been a dependency.

It looks like they had set up a dependency on the postfix
package, instead of sendmail.

> >Is "submission" a port name that is aliased to 587?
> Those are listed in /etc/services.

Got it!

> >From another email by you:
> >Also, while I can specify a server in the /etc/nhm/mts.conf file,
> >I cannot specify a port.  Is there some way to do so without
> >needing to explicitly call send(1) with those options? 
> No; we've talked about that, but we haven't come to an
> agreement to do it.
> Hate to throw another monkey wrench ... but depending on your
> server, inc(1) might be able to be used instead of fetchmail.

Ha ha, yes, I remember the discussions about using inc directly
instead of going through fetchmail/sendmail.  I also realized
that, if I didn't have sendmail up and running, my current use of
fetchmail would fail.  Given the hiccup, above, with sending
email, I'm going to leave well enough along on the inbound side
for now.  B-)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]