Blocked post

Simon Riggs wrote:

I've sent through v10 of my patch for transaction guarantee = off twice
now and it hasn't shown up on-list. I don't appear to be blocked, so I'm
not sure what the problem is?

Sent: 31 Mar 22:09 TZ+01:00
Sent: 1 Apr 12:11 TZ+01:00

Did you by any chance send it in .tar.gz format or such? Or was it
plaintext?

//Magnus

On Sun, 2007-04-01 at 19:40 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:

Simon Riggs wrote:

I've sent through v10 of my patch for transaction guarantee = off twice
now and it hasn't shown up on-list. I don't appear to be blocked, so I'm
not sure what the problem is?

Sent: 31 Mar 22:09 TZ+01:00
Sent: 1 Apr 12:11 TZ+01:00

Did you by any chance send it in .tar.gz format or such? Or was it
plaintext?

Plaintext patch, plus two plaintext .c files.

--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 03:08:08PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:

On Sun, 2007-04-01 at 19:40 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:

Simon Riggs wrote:

I've sent through v10 of my patch for transaction guarantee = off twice
now and it hasn't shown up on-list. I don't appear to be blocked, so I'm
not sure what the problem is?

Sent: 31 Mar 22:09 TZ+01:00
Sent: 1 Apr 12:11 TZ+01:00

Did you by any chance send it in .tar.gz format or such? Or was it
plaintext?

Plaintext patch, plus two plaintext .c files.

Then I have no clue. If you can, get your mailserver logs (including the
remote queue id) and send it to Marc, hopefully he can find out where they
went.

//Magnus

Simon Riggs wrote:

I've sent through v10 of my patch for transaction guarantee = off twice
now and it hasn't shown up on-list. I don't appear to be blocked, so I'm
not sure what the problem is?

Sent: 31 Mar 22:09 TZ+01:00
Sent: 1 Apr 12:11 TZ+01:00

What an obvious ploy to get more time for development. ;-)

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

"Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net> writes:

Plaintext patch, plus two plaintext .c files.

Then I have no clue.

Actually I've had more success with .tar.gz than plain text attachments.

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

Bruce Momjian wrote:

Simon Riggs wrote:

I've sent through v10 of my patch for transaction guarantee = off twice
now and it hasn't shown up on-list. I don't appear to be blocked, so I'm
not sure what the problem is?

Sent: 31 Mar 22:09 TZ+01:00
Sent: 1 Apr 12:11 TZ+01:00

What an obvious ploy to get more time for development. ;-)

In a bid to stave off such accusations, Simon had a couple of us witness
the outgoing mail in his Sent Items folder. We can arrange for copies of
our notarized statements to be provided if necessary :-p

/D

Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:

"Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net> writes:

Plaintext patch, plus two plaintext .c files.

Then I have no clue.

Actually I've had more success with .tar.gz than plain text attachments.

I think the filter is not on the name or actual contents of the file,
but what MIME content-type it's labeled with. (Which is actually pretty
sensible, because the point is to reject anything that Microsloth mail
readers might try to auto-execute.)

Plain ol' application/octet-stream always gets through for me.

regards, tom lane

Dave Page wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

Simon Riggs wrote:

I've sent through v10 of my patch for transaction guarantee = off twice
now and it hasn't shown up on-list. I don't appear to be blocked, so I'm
not sure what the problem is?

Sent: 31 Mar 22:09 TZ+01:00
Sent: 1 Apr 12:11 TZ+01:00

What an obvious ploy to get more time for development. ;-)

In a bid to stave off such accusations, Simon had a couple of us witness
the outgoing mail in his Sent Items folder. We can arrange for copies of
our notarized statements to be provided if necessary :-p

Well, FAST posted emails dated April 4 a few days ago, proving email
dates are not a valid method of authenticating the "sent" date. Perhaps
FAST's post-dated emails were meant to throw us off of Simon's pre-dating
them. ;-)

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Bruce Momjian wrote:

Dave Page wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

Simon Riggs wrote:

I've sent through v10 of my patch for transaction guarantee = off twice
now and it hasn't shown up on-list. I don't appear to be blocked, so I'm
not sure what the problem is?

Sent: 31 Mar 22:09 TZ+01:00
Sent: 1 Apr 12:11 TZ+01:00

What an obvious ploy to get more time for development. ;-)

In a bid to stave off such accusations, Simon had a couple of us witness
the outgoing mail in his Sent Items folder. We can arrange for copies of
our notarized statements to be provided if necessary :-p

Well, FAST posted emails dated April 4 a few days ago, proving email
dates are not a valid method of authenticating the "sent" date. Perhaps
FAST's post-dated emails were meant to throw us off of Simon's pre-dating
them. ;-)

Darn, busted! After all that lobbying for a short release cycle we had
to conspire with FAST to extend it again ;-)

/D

Tom Lane wrote:

Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:

"Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net> writes:

Plaintext patch, plus two plaintext .c files.

Then I have no clue.

Actually I've had more success with .tar.gz than plain text attachments.

I think the filter is not on the name or actual contents of the file,
but what MIME content-type it's labeled with. (Which is actually pretty
sensible, because the point is to reject anything that Microsloth mail
readers might try to auto-execute.)

It certainly would be, if the list of blocked MIME-types had anything to
do with reality. But really - windows doesn't even know what .tar.gz
*is*. Can't even open it. Much less execute it.

Having it block things like .exe, .bat etc makes a lot of sense.

(And to be fair, it might've been fixed by now, but I've never seen any
confirmation on whether it has been, even though I've asked several
times, so I expect it's not).

Plain ol' application/octet-stream always gets through for me.

Yeah, but that kinda assumes your MUA can change it. Microsoft ones
certainly don't let you do that, and many others (Thunderbird, for
example) don't either.

//Magnus

Dave Page wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

Dave Page wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

Simon Riggs wrote:

I've sent through v10 of my patch for transaction guarantee = off twice
now and it hasn't shown up on-list. I don't appear to be blocked, so I'm
not sure what the problem is?

Sent: 31 Mar 22:09 TZ+01:00
Sent: 1 Apr 12:11 TZ+01:00

What an obvious ploy to get more time for development. ;-)

In a bid to stave off such accusations, Simon had a couple of us witness
the outgoing mail in his Sent Items folder. We can arrange for copies of
our notarized statements to be provided if necessary :-p

Well, FAST posted emails dated April 4 a few days ago, proving email
dates are not a valid method of authenticating the "sent" date. Perhaps
FAST's post-dated emails were meant to throw us off of Simon's pre-dating
them. ;-)

Darn, busted! After all that lobbying for a short release cycle we had
to conspire with FAST to extend it again ;-)

Yep, I suspected a conspiracy from the start. ;-)

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +