I just discovered this cpantesters report without a MIME version header.
Note that the content clearly *is* MIME.

http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.cpan.testers/5012305

Do you know who is wrongdoing here?

--
andreas

Search Discussions

  • David Golden at Oct 31, 2009 at 3:51 am

    On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
    I just discovered this cpantesters report without a MIME version header.
    Note that the content clearly *is* MIME.

    http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.cpan.testers/5012305

    Do you know who is wrongdoing here?
    I don't. (Copying Ask and Robert in case it's something at the Perl NOC)

    I note that it doesn't have the usual "X-Reported-Via header, either.
    Perhaps some MTA has stripped out message headers? (In violation of
    the SMTP RFCs, of course).

    A usual CPAN Testers report from CPAN::Reporter should have headers like this:

    X-Reported-Via: Test::Reporter 1.54, via CPAN::Reporter 1.1708
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    -- David
  • Robert Spier at Oct 31, 2009 at 4:05 am
    CCing Nigel, source of the report.

    None of the perl.org servers should be stripping out any of these
    headers, and nothing related to email has changed recently.

    The raw version in the archives does not have any MIME headers, or
    anything else suspicious. Obviously, the lack of MIME headers is
    weird.

    -R (maybe this is more motivation to get email out of the pipeline?)


    David Golden wrote:
    On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Andreas J. Koenig
    wrote:
    I just discovered this cpantesters report without a MIME version header.
    Note that the content clearly *is* MIME.

    http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.cpan.testers/5012305

    Do you know who is wrongdoing here?
    I don't. (Copying Ask and Robert in case it's something at the Perl NOC)

    I note that it doesn't have the usual "X-Reported-Via header, either.
    Perhaps some MTA has stripped out message headers? (In violation of
    the SMTP RFCs, of course).

    A usual CPAN Testers report from CPAN::Reporter should have headers like this:

    X-Reported-Via: Test::Reporter 1.54, via CPAN::Reporter 1.1708
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    -- David
  • David Golden at Oct 31, 2009 at 11:49 am

    On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Robert Spier wrote:
    -R (maybe this is more motivation to get email out of the pipeline?)
    FWIW, I've switched ISPs to a provider that won't let me "spam"
    thousands of reports a day, so my personal motivation to get us off
    email had just kicked up a notch. I've got a little more toolchain
    hacking to finish around Module::Build, then I'm back to working on
    CPAN Testers 2.0.

    -- David
  • Nigel Horne at Oct 31, 2009 at 3:04 pm

    David Golden wrote:
    On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Robert Spier wrote:

    -R (maybe this is more motivation to get email out of the pipeline?)
    FWIW, I've switched ISPs to a provider that won't let me "spam"
    thousands of reports a day, so my personal motivation to get us off
    email had just kicked up a notch. I've got a little more toolchain
    hacking to finish around Module::Build, then I'm back to working on
    CPAN Testers 2.0.
    Great, thanks David! I have plenty of woes with the cpan testers list -
    reports bouncing, false spam reports, the works!
    -- David
    -Nigel
  • Robert Spier at Oct 31, 2009 at 6:17 pm

    Nigel Horne wrote:

    David Golden wrote:
    On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Robert Spier wrote:

    -R (maybe this is more motivation to get email out of the pipeline?)
    FWIW, I've switched ISPs to a provider that won't let me "spam"
    thousands of reports a day, so my personal motivation to get us off
    email had just kicked up a notch. I've got a little more toolchain
    hacking to finish around Module::Build, then I'm back to working on
    CPAN Testers 2.0.
    Great, thanks David! I have plenty of woes with the cpan testers list
    -
    reports bouncing,
    This I can understand, as we can be persnickety sometimes with
    accepting things.
    false spam reports
    This seems unlikely, as we don't actually deliver cpan-testers via
    email to anyone anymore.

    -R
  • George Greer at Nov 2, 2009 at 12:05 pm

    On Sat, 31 Oct 2009, Robert Spier wrote:

    Nigel Horne wrote:
    false spam reports
    This seems unlikely, as we don't actually deliver cpan-testers via
    email to anyone anymore.
    Unfortunately they still exist:

    blt-0.22
    <cpan-testers@perl.org>: host mx.develooper.com[207.171.7.76] said: 552
    cli.gs in multi.uribl.com: Blacklisted, see
    http://lookup.uribl.com/?domain=cli.gs

    WWW-Shorten-2.03
    <cpan-testers@perl.org>: host mx.develooper.com[207.171.7.76] said: 552
    snipr.com in multi.uribl.com: Blacklisted, see
    http://lookup.uribl.com/?domain=snipr.com

    --
    George Greer
  • Robert Spier at Nov 2, 2009 at 4:23 pm

    George Greer wrote:
    On Sat, 31 Oct 2009, Robert Spier wrote:

    Nigel Horne wrote:
    false spam reports
    This seems unlikely, as we don't actually deliver cpan-testers via
    email to anyone anymore.
    Unfortunately they still exist:

    blt-0.22
    <cpan-testers@perl.org>: host mx.develooper.com[207.171.7.76] said: 552
    cli.gs in multi.uribl.com: Blacklisted, see
    http://lookup.uribl.com/?domain=cli.gs

    WWW-Shorten-2.03
    <cpan-testers@perl.org>: host mx.develooper.com[207.171.7.76] said: 552
    snipr.com in multi.uribl.com: Blacklisted, see
    http://lookup.uribl.com/?domain=snipr.com
    These aren't false spam reports. These say your email mentioned "cli
    dot gs" or "snipr dot com" in a form that matched a URI -- likely
    prefixed by http://. I'm obfuscating them here to be paranoid.

    Link shorteners are great for spammers (it adds indirection for free),
    and it results in the link-shortener getting listed in blacklists.
    Your test reports are collateral damage in the spam wars.

    -R
  • Nigel Horne at Nov 2, 2009 at 4:52 pm

    Robert Spier wrote:
    George Greer wrote:
    On Sat, 31 Oct 2009, Robert Spier wrote:

    Nigel Horne wrote:
    false spam reports
    This seems unlikely, as we don't actually deliver cpan-testers via
    email to anyone anymore.
    I meant cpan-testers-discuss be sometimes flagged incorrectly as spam
    and reported so, not cpan-testers.

    -Nigel
  • Robert Spier at Nov 2, 2009 at 8:50 pm

    I meant cpan-testers-discuss be sometimes flagged incorrectly as spam
    and reported so, not cpan-testers.
    That is an entirely different problem.

    -R
  • George Greer at Nov 3, 2009 at 12:11 am

    On Mon, 2 Nov 2009, Robert Spier wrote:

    George Greer wrote:
    Unfortunately they still exist:

    blt-0.22
    <cpan-testers@perl.org>: host mx.develooper.com[207.171.7.76] said: 552
    cli.gs in multi.uribl.com: Blacklisted, see
    http://lookup.uribl.com/?domain=cli.gs

    WWW-Shorten-2.03
    <cpan-testers@perl.org>: host mx.develooper.com[207.171.7.76] said: 552
    snipr.com in multi.uribl.com: Blacklisted, see
    http://lookup.uribl.com/?domain=snipr.com
    These aren't false spam reports. [...]
    [...]
    Your test reports are collateral damage in the spam wars.
    Um...which side are you arguing for?

    On a more practical note, it's only ever happened twice in many thousands
    of test reports so it is fortunately lesser of an issue than
    <perlmail-cpan-testers@onion.perl.org> recently that was bouncing test
    reports because they were "too big."

    --
    George Greer
  • Robert Spier at Nov 3, 2009 at 12:16 am

    [...]
    Your test reports are collateral damage in the spam wars.
    Um...which side are you arguing for?
    The defense. Sorry, collateral damage is a fact of this war.
    On a more practical note, it's only ever happened twice in many
    thousands of test reports so it is fortunately lesser of an issue than
    <perlmail-cpan-testers@onion.perl.org> recently that was bouncing test
    reports because they were "too big."
    Why do you have test reports bigger than 100k?

    -R
  • Chris 'BinGOs' Williams at Nov 3, 2009 at 5:05 pm

    On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 04:16:03PM -0800, Robert Spier wrote:
    Why do you have test reports bigger than 100k?

    -R
    More often than not because a CPAN authors does not specify a prereq
    that they need and when it comes to run the test suite, perl helpfully
    spews out that Such and Such module can't be found in @INC

    As most smokers are using PERL5LIB, these @INC dumps can be huge.

    Many tests equals many huge warnings equals huge test reports.

    I see fifty or so of the bounce 'Failure' messages a day due to the 100K
    limit.

    Cheers,

    --
    Chris Williams
    aka BinGOs
    PGP ID 0x4658671F
    http://www.gumbynet.org.uk
    ==========================
  • David Cantrell at Nov 4, 2009 at 5:27 pm

    On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 05:04:51PM +0000, Chris 'BinGOs' Williams wrote:
    On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 04:16:03PM -0800, Robert Spier wrote:
    Why do you have test reports bigger than 100k?
    More often than not because a CPAN authors does not specify a prereq
    that they need and when it comes to run the test suite, perl helpfully
    spews out that Such and Such module can't be found in @INC
    As most smokers are using PERL5LIB, these @INC dumps can be huge.
    Many tests equals many huge warnings equals huge test reports.
    I thought that both CPAN::Reporter and CPANPLUS::Whatever now truncated
    ridiculously long messages (or rather, snip stuff out of the middle, as
    the useful bits are at the top and tail).

    --
    David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice

    The test of the goodness of a thing is its fitness for use. If it
    fails on this first test, no amount of ornamentation or finish will
    make it any better, it will only make it more expensive and foolish.
    -- Frank Pick, lecture to the Design and Industries Assoc, 1916

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupcpan-testers-discuss @
categoriesperl
postedOct 30, '09 at 9:21p
activeNov 4, '09 at 5:27p
posts14
users7
websitecpan.org

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase