Majordomo results

Majordomo results

[Majordomo]

--

>>>> auth 27467a8e subscribe linux-kernel linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Succeeded.

Re: Majordomo results

[Ketil Froyn]

On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Majordomo@vger.kernel.org wrote:

> --
> 
> >>>> auth 27467a8e subscribe linux-kernel linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Succeeded.

This could get interesting...

Ketil

Re: Majordomo results

[Russell King]

On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 11:26:19AM +0100, Ketil Froyn wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Majordomo@vger.kernel.org wrote:
> > >>>> auth 27467a8e subscribe linux-kernel linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Succeeded.
> 
> This could get interesting...

No it won't.  davem has put protection against such mail loops into
this version of majordomo.  Its a real shame that people are so stupid
that they try this.

-- 
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk)                The developer of ARM Linux
             http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html

Re: Majordomo results

[Matti Aarnio]

On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 10:35:45AM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 11:26:19AM +0100, Ketil Froyn wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Majordomo@vger.kernel.org wrote:
> > > >>>> auth 27467a8e subscribe linux-kernel linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > > Succeeded.
> > This could get interesting...
> 
> No it won't.  davem has put protection against such mail loops into
> this version of majordomo.  Its a real shame that people are so stupid
> that they try this.

  It just generates looped messages that are bounced to the list owner.
  Subscriber's message had these headers:  (yes, we do log EVERYTHING
  sent to Majordomo.. We don't log everything sent to the lists, though.
  There are a number of archives for that.)

>From ryan@completely.kicks-ass.org Thu Nov  7 05:16:02 2002
Received: from h24-77-26-115.gv.shawcable.net ([24.77.26.115]:49803 "EHLO
        completely") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S266438AbSKGKQC>;
        Thu, 7 Nov 2002 05:16:02 -0500
Received: from ryan by completely with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
        id 189jo9-0004J3-00
        for <Majordomo@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 07 Nov 2002 02:22:41 -0800
From:   Foo Bar <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
To:     Majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Thu, 7 Nov 2002 02:22:41 -0800
User-Agent: KMail/1.4.7-cool
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200211070222.41246.linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sender: Ryan Cumming <ryan@completely.kicks-ass.org>
Return-Path: <ryan@completely.kicks-ass.org>


> Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk)                The developer of ARM Linux
>              http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html

/Matti Aarnio   --  co-postmaster of vger.kernel.org

Re: Majordomo results

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 10:35:45AM +0000, Russell King wrote:
>> No it won't.  davem has put protection against such mail loops into
>> this version of majordomo.  Its a real shame that people are so stupid
>> that they try this.

On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 12:44:55PM +0200, Matti Aarnio wrote:
>   It just generates looped messages that are bounced to the list owner.
>   Subscriber's message had these headers:  (yes, we do log EVERYTHING
>   sent to Majordomo.. We don't log everything sent to the lists, though.
>   There are a number of archives for that.)

Could these DoS attempts get filtered somehow?


Thanks,
Bill

Re: Majordomo results

[Matti Aarnio]

On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 03:39:38AM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 12:44:55PM +0200, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> >   It just generates looped messages that are bounced to the list owner.
> >   Subscriber's message had these headers:  (yes, we do log EVERYTHING
> >   sent to Majordomo.. We don't log everything sent to the lists, though.
> >   There are a number of archives for that.)
> 
> Could these DoS attempts get filtered somehow?

  Sorry, its me talking "majordomo" -- when a filter is triggered,
  a "BOUNCE" is sent to the listowner(s) for their analysis and decission.

  So yes, they are filtered already by way of a loop filter we have
  introduced, because every now and then people use MTA/MUA softwares
  that make a mistake at receiving a message and consider visible
  "To:" and "Cc:" headers to carry relevant data for message routing..

  Think a bit of this message; "To:" says  "linux-kernel@vger", but
  it will nevertheless be sent to thousands of recipients whose
  addresses are not visible in these headers at all.
  The Internet Email is routed and transported by SMTP-envelope data,
  which in normal cases is not displayed in visible headers.
  Things in these visible headers have at most incidental relationship
  with actual message routing and destinations.

> Thanks,
> Bill

/Matti Aarnio

Re: Majordomo results

[Rik van Riel]

On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, William Lee Irwin III wrote:

> Could these DoS attempts get filtered somehow?

Come on, if Ryan Cumming wants to make an ass out of himself,
why shouldn't he be allowed to ? ;)

Rik
-- 
A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

Re: Majordomo results

[Ian Soboroff]

Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> writes:

> On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>
>> Could these DoS attempts get filtered somehow?
>
> Come on, if Ryan Cumming wants to make an ass out of himself,
> why shouldn't he be allowed to ? ;)

It might be an innocent fat-finger problem... I use a digestifying
mailing list gateway to get lkml and almost comitted this error
myself...

ian

OT Re: Majordomo results

[Brian Davids]

Ian Soboroff wrote:
> It might be an innocent fat-finger problem... I use a digestifying
> mailing list gateway to get lkml and almost comitted this error
> myself...
> 
> ian

Not since whoever did it replied to the confirmation email with the 
proper authorization message.  Definitely intentional.


Brian Davids

Re: Majordomo results

[Frederik Eaton]

On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 08:40:58PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:17:45 -0800
> Frederik Eaton <frederik@a5.repetae.net> wrote:
> 
> > Wait... how is the address to which I'm trying to subscribe defined if
> > the email field has to be empty?
> 
> If it's empty Majordomo uses the From: of the email the request
> comes from, that's the most error-proof way to add yourself.

No, actually it appears to use Reply-To: in preference to From: if it
exists, apparently that was my (its) problem. Can you change this
error message:

> >>>> auth 51a49557 subscribe linux-kernel frederik@a5.repetae.net
> Your request to Majordomo@vger.kernel.org:
> 
>         subscribe linux-kernel frederik@a5.repetae.net
> 
> has been forwarded to the owner of the "linux-kernel" list for approval.
> This could be for any of several reasons:
> 
>     You might have asked to subscribe to a "closed" list, where all new
>         additions must be approved by the list owner.
> 
>     You might have asked to subscribe or unsubscribe an address other than
>         the one that appears in the headers of your mail message.
> 
> When the list owner approves your request, you will be notified.
> 
> If you have any questions about the policy of the list owner, please
> contact "linux-kernel-approval@vger.kernel.org".
> 
> 
> Thanks!

to say something like this:

> >>>> auth 51a49557 subscribe linux-kernel frederik@a5.repetae.net
> Your request to Majordomo@vger.kernel.org:
> 
>         subscribe linux-kernel frederik@a5.repetae.net
> 
> has been forwarded to the owner of the "linux-kernel" list for
> approval. This is most likely because you have asked to subscribe or
> unsubscribe an address other than the one that appears in the
> Reply-To: header of your mail message, if it exists, or the From:
> header otherwise. We do this not to prevent people from abusively
> subscribing others, but to make it hard for people to subscribe who
> wouldn't be able to figure out how to unsubscribe later, which cause
> us a great deal of trouble.
> 
> If the list owner approves your request (although really, you
> shouldn't hold your breath) you will be notified.
> 
> If you have any questions about the policy of the list owner, please
> contact "linux-kernel-approval@vger.kernel.org".
> 
> 
> Thanks!

Your assertion that only From: was used caused me to reverify a couple
of times that none of my outgoing MTAs were rewriting my From:
headers, before I tried subscribing without Reply-To:. I think putting
in the error message a description of exactly what the behavior of
your list server is, along with removing the suggestion of the
possibility that the list might be closed (are any vger lists
closed?), and that the user should wait for the owner to take action,
would be of great help to users who are trying to subscribe and are
indeed *not* clueless. Actually, I'm not an expert in mailing list
logic, but I also don't see any reason not to let the subscription
address match either From: *or* Reply-To: *or*, say, Sender:, rather
than taking the first header it finds as it seems to do now.

Thanks,

Frederik Eaton

Majordomo results

[Majordomo]

--

>>>> subscribe linux-kernel
**** Your request to Majordomo@vger.kernel.org:
**** 
**** 	subscribe linux-kernel linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
**** 
**** must be authenticated.  To accomplish this, another request must be
**** sent in with an authorization key, which has been sent to:
**** 	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
**** 
**** If the message is not received, there is generally a problem with
**** the address.  Before reporting this as a problem, please note the
**** following:
****
**** You only need to give an address to the subscribe command if you want
**** to receive list mail at a different address from where you sent the
**** command.  Otherwise you can simply omit it.
****
**** If you do give an address to the subscribe command, it must be a legal
**** address.  It should not consist solely of your name.  The address must
**** point to a machine that is reachable from the list server.
****
**** If you have any questions about the policy of the list owner, please
**** contact "linux-kernel-approval@vger.kernel.org".
**** 
**** Thanks!
**** 
**** Majordomo@vger.kernel.org

Majordomo results

[Majordomo]

--

>>>> auth ffd69ec2 subscribe linux-kernel linux-kernel@mailinglist.gnuher.de
Your request to Majordomo@vger.kernel.org:

	subscribe linux-kernel linux-kernel@mailinglist.gnuher.de

has been forwarded to the owner of the "linux-kernel" list for approval. 
This could be for any of several reasons:

    You might have asked to subscribe to a "closed" list, where all new
	additions must be approved by the list owner. 

    You might have asked to subscribe or unsubscribe an address other than
	the one that appears in the headers of your mail message.

When the list owner approves your request, you will be notified.

If you have any questions about the policy of the list owner, please
contact "linux-kernel-approval@vger.kernel.org".


Thanks!

Majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>>>> 

Re: Majordomo results

[Matti Aarnio]

This is in the series of "don't do that" ...

Request originator had edited "From:" address to list address,
and there was no "To:" or "Cc:" header at all.

Overall, any request needing approval from listowner is likely to be
_ignored_.   You do see the amount of traffic in these lists.
>From that you can have a vague idea of how much admin junk listowners 
get...

See  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html   for futher guidance.


On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 09:24:33AM -0400, Majordomo@vger.kernel.org wrote:
> To:	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> From:	Majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Majordomo results
> Date:	Tue, 9 Sep 2003 09:24:33 -0400
> 
> --
> 
> >>>> auth ffd69ec2 subscribe linux-kernel linux-kernel@mailinglist.gnuher.de
> Your request to Majordomo@vger.kernel.org:
> 
> 	subscribe linux-kernel linux-kernel@mailinglist.gnuher.de
> 
> has been forwarded to the owner of the "linux-kernel" list for approval. 
> This could be for any of several reasons:
> 
>     You might have asked to subscribe to a "closed" list, where all new
> 	additions must be approved by the list owner. 
> 
>     You might have asked to subscribe or unsubscribe an address other than
> 	the one that appears in the headers of your mail message.
> 
> When the list owner approves your request, you will be notified.
> 
> If you have any questions about the policy of the list owner, please
> contact "linux-kernel-approval@vger.kernel.org".
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> >>>> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Majordomo results

[Majordomo]

--

>>>> subscribe linux-kernel
**** Your request to Majordomo@vger.kernel.org:
**** 
**** 	subscribe linux-kernel linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
**** 
**** must be authenticated.  To accomplish this, another request must be
**** sent in with an authorization key, which has been sent to:
**** 	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
**** 
**** If the message is not received, there is generally a problem with
**** the address.  Before reporting this as a problem, please note the
**** following:
****
**** You only need to give an address to the subscribe command if you want
**** to receive list mail at a different address from where you sent the
**** command.  Otherwise you can simply omit it.
****
**** If you do give an address to the subscribe command, it must be a legal
**** address.  It should not consist solely of your name.  The address must
**** point to a machine that is reachable from the list server.
****
**** If you have any questions about the policy of the list owner, please
**** contact "linux-kernel-approval@vger.kernel.org".
**** 
**** Thanks!
**** 
**** Majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>>>> 

Re: Majordomo results

[Matti Aarnio]

  Yes, very amusing...
Of course vger's system would trap the loop if it was to born at all..


On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 01:12:28PM -0500, Majordomo@vger.kernel.org wrote:
> To:	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> From:	Majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Majordomo results
> Date:	Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:12:28 -0500
> 
> --
> 
> >>>> subscribe linux-kernel
> **** Your request to Majordomo@vger.kernel.org:
> **** 
> **** 	subscribe linux-kernel linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Re: Majordomo results

[Horst von Brand]

Majordomo@vger.kernel.org said:
> Subject: Majordomo results
> 
> Reply-To: Majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> Sender:  linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
> Precedence: bulk
> X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> X-UIDL:  9a83f231229a8b070b2eaf1d247ce626
> 
> --
> 
> >>>> subscribe linux-kernel
> **** Your request to Majordomo@vger.kernel.org:
> **** 
> **** 	subscribe linux-kernel linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Seems some idiot was trying to pull a stunt here...
-- 
Horst von Brand			     http://counter.li.org # 22616

Re: Majordomo results

[Reid Hekman]

On Fri, 2002-02-08 at 13:48, Horst von Brand wrote:
> Majordomo@vger.kernel.org said:
> > Subject: Majordomo results
> > 
> > Reply-To: Majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > Sender:  linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
> > Precedence: bulk
> > X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > X-UIDL:  9a83f231229a8b070b2eaf1d247ce626
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > >>>> subscribe linux-kernel
> > **** Your request to Majordomo@vger.kernel.org:
> > **** 
> > **** 	subscribe linux-kernel linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> 
> Seems some idiot was trying to pull a stunt here...

Heh, how's that saying go: "Do not attribute to malice that which can be
explained by stupidity."!?

Regards