[ih] Found the bug - a word to avoid....

[the keyboard of geoff goodfellow]

thanks joe and here's what yours truly suspects is going on:

ISOC's mail lists is running PostFix, viz.:

host elists.isoc.org


elists.isoc.org has address 4.31.198.48

elists.isoc.org has IPv6 address 2001:1900:3001:11::30

elists.isoc.org mail is handled by 10 elists.isoc.org.


telnet elists.isoc.org. smtp

Trying 2001:1900:3001:11::30...

Connected to elists.isoc.org.

Escape character is '^]'.

220 elists.isoc.org ESMTP *Postfix*

quit

221 2.0.0 Bye

Connection closed by foreign host.


Postfix, like Sendmail (that yours truly runs), have Milters, viz.:

Postfix before-queue Milter support
------------------------------
Introduction

Postfix implements support for the Sendmail version 8 Milter (mail filter)
protocol. This protocol is used by applications that run outside the MTA to
inspect SMTP events (CONNECT, DISCONNECT), SMTP commands (HELO, MAIL FROM,
etc.) as well as mail content (headers and body). All this happens before
mail is queued.

The reason for adding Milter support to Postfix is that there exists a
large collection of applications, not only to block unwanted mail, but also
to verify authenticity (examples: OpenDKIM <http://www.opendkim.org/> and
DMARC  <http://www.trusteddomain.org/opendmarc/>) or to digitally sign mail
(example: OpenDKIM <http://www.opendkim.org/>). Having yet another
Postfix-specific version of all that software is a poor use of human and
system resources.
The Milter protocol has evolved over time, and different Postfix versions
implement different feature sets. See the workarounds
<http://www.postfix.org/MILTER_README.html#workarounds> and limitations
<http://www.postfix.org/MILTER_README.html#limitations> sections at the end
of this document for differences between Postfix and Sendmail
implementations...
[...]
http://www.postfix.org/MILTER_README.html


ERGO, it is further posited that the ISOC mail list MTA Postfix MTA is Very
Likely employing a "snowflake" Milter of a sort that does not like certain
words and one of those words is likely “hook-up” (Without the hyphen).

geoff
(who is still immersed in system and networking "janitoring" email gizzards)

On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 7:28 PM Joseph Touch <touch at strayalpha.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sep 12, 2020, at 10:24 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow <
> geoff at iconia.com> wrote:
>
> joe, please de-confuse yours truly:
>
> not only did it happen to you, but it also happened to karl as well as
> yours truly when sending a message with the single word “hook-up” in it?
> (Without the hyphen).
>
>
> It’s, as Brian put it, a “snowflake filter” at ISOC - one that is not part
> of the Mailman configuration, but it is part of the ISOC processing.
>
> in all three cases, an email sent to IH with the word “hook-up” (Without
> the hyphen) did not go out to the list, but instead it went to /dev/null --
> with NO notification to the sender (or anyone).
>
> isn't that consistency between us three and not just unique to you?
>
>
> It is - I wasn’t saying it was unique to me; I was saying it was not.
>
> Joe
>
>
> with eternal gratitude for your being our list admin,
>
> geoff
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 7:05 PM Joseph Touch <touch at strayalpha.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 12, 2020, at 9:58 PM, Stephen Casner <casner at acm.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sat, 12 Sep 2020, Joseph Touch via Internet-history wrote:
>> >
>> >> I administer this list as supported at no cost by ISOC.
>> >
>> > And we appreciate it.
>> >
>> >> I didn't write Mailman and don't know why it didn't send a bounce
>> >> message.
>> >
>> > Perhaps ISOC's Mailman was not where the problem occurred.
>>
>> If not, then why would it happen for me when sending a message with the
>> single word “hook-up” in it? (Without the hyphen)?
>>
>> I don’t use the same mail system on my end as either Karl or Geoff.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>
> --
> Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com
> living as The Truth is True
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com
living as The Truth is True