[clamav-users] OT: mailing list behaviours (Re: Part 2: Dynamic engine module for scanning media files (e.g., MP3, MP4, etc.)?)

[Crystalslave]

To be honest, I'm not sure if the verbiage should be removed
wholesale. I didn't include the return path in last night's original
post, and when Mr. Varnell replied this morning, I didn't see the
reply in my inbox. I only found it by browsing to the archive and
seeing it there. So something was definitely missing.

To be clear, I've never bothered with a host-based mail client like
Thunderbird or Evolution. Heretofore, I've never needed to. This
correspondence has been maintained solely through the standard Gmail
web client.

That seems to be problematic. In response to Reindl's post, I did some
research pertaining to mail headers. Seen below is the header that was
automatically generated by the Gmail web client for the post that I
made this morning:

---

MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.48.116 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 12:52:13 -0500
Delivered-To: harlequin738 at gmail.com
Message-ID: <CABmDtUazhP8_8mouaJ843S1BSn6xQ43YCgA27OiEsujshaiLuw at mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Part 2: Dynamic engine module for scanning media files (e.g.,
MP3, MP4, etc.)?
From: Crystalslave <harlequin738 at gmail.com>
To: clamav-users at lists.clamav.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Return-Path: harlequin738 at gmail.com

---

Note the newline between Content-Type and Return-Path. That demarcates
the beginning of the message body. In other words, the return path is
only present because I manually added it.

This may be the only viable approach for a Gmail user who doesn't want
to bother with a host-based web client.

Is that perhaps why the verbiage was there in the first place?

Note also the absence of a "Sender" field. It seems to have been
replaced by "Delivered-To." Could that also have been problematic?

For many of you folks, this mailing list stuff probably seems
second-nature, but when I woke up this morning, I didn't even know
what an envelope sender was. I only learned how to view the full email
header by visiting this page:

https://support.google.com/mail/answer/22454?hl=en

In short, I just think more could be done to make mailing list use a
little more straightforward for those of us who have been spoiled by
the click-and-post nature of forums.

Just my two cents. :)

On 9/19/17, Joel Esler (jesler) <jesler at cisco.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 19, 2017, at 2:48 PM, Kris Deugau
> <kdeugau at vianet.ca<mailto:kdeugau at vianet.ca>> wrote:
>
> Crystalslave wrote:
> Return-Path: harlequin738 at gmail.com<mailto:harlequin738 at gmail.com>
>
> First off, my apologies for the confusion. This is my first time
> posting to a mailing list; I didn't really know how to handle the
> return path thing, so I had to start over. Is this better? The return
> path goes at the top of the message body, right? Or is it the subject
> line? The verbiage on the ML FAQ is a little ambiguous.
>
> http://www.clamav.net/documents/mailing-lists-faq
>
> TBH I had to go have a look to see what you were talking about;  in ~20+
> years participating in various lists like this I've never met one that had
> such a strange public-facing requirement for something that's part of the
> internals of normal mail system operation.  "Return-Path" is a generated
> header most commonly added to a message on final delivery, not something you
> add in the body or as an outgoing header.
>
> The sentence "Please check that your outgoing messages start with a line
> like the following: Return-Path: me at mydomain.com<mailto:me at mydomain.com>
> where me at mydomain.com<mailto:me at mydomain.com> is the mail account which you
> used to subscribe to the mailing-list." should really be removed outright,
> along with the last sentence "You will be able to post to the mailing-lists
> by putting any of those addresses in Return-Path.".
>
> "Subscribers-only" posting is common on "interactive" mailing lists like
> this one - technically inclined or not.  So long as you're using a regular
> mail program to send to the list, and you have your user profile set to the
> address you subscribed with, you should be fine.
>
>
> I agree that it’s unnecessary.  I’ve removed the verbiage.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> clamav-users mailing list
> clamav-users at lists.clamav.net
> http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
>
>
> Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide:
> https://github.com/vrtadmin/clamav-faq
>
> http://www.clamav.net/contact.html#ml