Date:         Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:25:28 -0700
Reply-To:     Jim Arnott <jrasite@EONI.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Jim Arnott <jrasite@EONI.COM>
Subject:      Re: bounce related to vanagon list post:   Fwd: Your email
              requires verification verify#S8kdm1YcyRtVOIQT5uWJNjsC2FyaBska)
In-Reply-To:  <4c8bd5c6.18a6650a.7e46.ffffcbe5@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes

<listmember hat on>

The below is generated by a listmember using a whitelisting service.
It requires that mail received from any new address respond to a
computer generated message before it will allow delivery of the
original message. Personally, I feel that such services are rather
presumptuous on the subscriber's part.  My immediate reaction to such
notices is, "You signed up here. You want information from us. Why
should I have to jump through ANY hoops to share my thought with you.
You want me to send email to you. You make it happen.  It's not my
responsibility." Then I delete the whitelist request. If I get another
one, I simply create a rule to trash further mail coming from that
address.

But that's just me.

Jim

On Sep 11, 2010, at 12:17 PM, a Vanagon List subscriber wrote:

> got this message back after sending a post to the list.
>
>
>
>> Received: by 10.216.139.161 with SMTP id c33cs79682wej;
>>        Sat, 11 Sep 2010 10:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
>> Received: by 10.150.219.18 with SMTP id r18mr16936ybg.
>> 172.1284227848397;
>>        Sat, 11 Sep 2010 10:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
>> Return-Path: <ventas@ingmedia-cr.net>
>> Received: from server1.inmedia-cr.net ([174.36.1.34])
>>        by mx.google.com with ESMTP id q31si8595441ybk.
>> 50.2010.09.11.10.57.28;
>>        Sat, 11 Sep 2010 10:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
>> Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 174.36.1.34 is neither permitted
>> nor denied by best guess record for domain of ventas@ingmedia-
>> cr.net) client-ip=174.36.1.34;
>> Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com:
>> 174.36.1.34 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record
>> for domain of ventas@ingmedia-cr.net) smtp.mail=ventas@ingmedia-cr.net
>> Received: from ingmedia by server1.inmedia-cr.net with local (Exim
>> 4.69)
>>        (envelope-from <ventas@ingmedia-cr.net>)
>>        id 1OuUKN-0005u3-RT
>>
>> X-Boxtrapper: aKGXbY4I71S9dv2eqJ7Lb7YgZnB3porH
>> X-Autorespond: aKGXbY4I71S9dv2eqJ7Lb7YgZnB3porH
>> Precedence: auto_reply
>> X-Precedence: auto_reply
>> From: ventas@ingmedia-cr.net
>> To: emaglott3@gmail.com
>> Subject: Your email requires verification
>> verify#S8kdm1YcyRtVOIQT5uWJNjsC2FyaBska)
>> Message-Id: <E1OuUKN-0005u3-RT@server1.inmedia-cr.net>
>> Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 12:57:27 -0500
>> X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include
>> it with any abuse report
>> X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server1.inmedia-cr.net
>> X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - gmail.com
>> X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [559 555] / [47 12]
>> X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - ingmedia-cr.net
>>
>> The message you sent requires that you verify that you
>> are a real live human being and not a spam source.
>>
>> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave
>> the subject line intact.
>>
>> The headers of the message sent from your address are shown below:
>>
>> >From owner-vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM Sat Sep 11 12:57:27 2010
>> Received: from gerry.vanagon.com ([71.126.148.6])
>>        by server1.inmedia-cr.net with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
>>        (envelope-from <owner-vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>)
>>        id 1OuUKN-0005tt-O1
>>        for ventas@INGMEDIA-CR.NET; Sat, 11 Sep 2010 12:57:27 -0500
>> Received: from gerry (gerry.vanagon.com) by gerry.vanagon.com
>> (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.004B1E55@gerry.vanagon.com
>> >; Sat, 11 Sep 2010 13:56:55 -0400
>> Received: from GERRY.VANAGON.COM by GERRY.VANAGON.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/
>> IP release
>>          1.8d) with spool id 8770828 for vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM;
>> Sat, 11
>>          Sep 2010 13:39:51 -0400
>> Received: from mail-yw0-f54.google.com by gerry.vanagon.com (LSMTP
>> for Windows
>>          NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.004B1E4D@gerry.vanagon.com>;
>> Sat, 11 Sep
>>          2010 13:39:51 -0400
>> Received: by ywt2 with SMTP id 2so2103939ywt.41 for
>>          <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>; Sat, 11 Sep 2010 10:39:49
>> -0700 (PDT)
>> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com;
>> s=gamma;
>> h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:x-mailer:date:to
>>                :from:subject:mime-version:content-type;
>>                bh=2lQdRIGlyagJ16MuoDszrwHiHsUMJW3sOMXvJ0cFric=;
>> b=uPo69AbRYj3TXoYXSNrcX7n/dGnAS+8LjY3rSyy2n4qmOcxJvafFwqykfm/gquj4pd
>> 4ZPRepURxi0GyZG5j+pg0HvQcOs14bEjGQ2vzIPDXh2aYpGwcuZaoC5de4JC69fnjOVj
>>                DtGnJdaAXiMtWRKK+FqprXpU2+N1hak1se6yI=
>> DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
>> h=message-id:x-mailer:date:to:from:subject:mime-version:content-type;
>> b=HB9ohKwGDkZnR/TFycs4v/Wfk6j1OENyb8nnhfB68axW79cj3HLexC9zmjemWawrjl
>> PinXFy/Wg9C0FnmPlUFAnrTtaRrWOjA3tKTL7kbCrz9TLVV4izOGhEnuBnWrjyZRLe4B
>>                     K7mE87IiBSniMMK/pjheaJeA16v6YhwItvw4Y=
>> Received: by 10.100.29.28 with SMTP id c28mr2246025anc.
>> 227.1284226789550; Sat,
>>          11 Sep 2010 10:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
>> Received: from pczx13900.gmail.com
>> (adsl-243-181-159.ard.bellsouth.net
>>          [74.243.181.159]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id
>>          w6sm6258149anb.3.2010.09.11.10.39.47 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3
>>          cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 11 Sep 2010 10:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
>> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
>> Mime-Version: 1.0
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>> Message-ID:  <4c8bbee4.0663640a.2fc7.ffffc9c9@mx.google.com>
>> Date:         Sat, 11 Sep 2010 13:39:47 -0400
>> Reply-To:     <deleted>
>> Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
>> From:         <deleted>
>> Subject:      semi-urgent auto transmission question
>> To:           vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
>
>