You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucy.apache.org by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> on 2014/06/03 04:08:31 UTC
[lucy-dev] Re: [dev] DMARC munging active here
Would you say the same thing about gmail accounts? Its only
a matter of time before they follow Y!'s lead.
On Monday, June 2, 2014 10:02 PM, Nathan Kurz <na...@verse.com> wrote:
I have a strong reaction to keep the tags intact with the name of the
list included. But perhaps I'm just stuck in my ways?
I'll adapt if necessary, but also no have problem with leaving Yahoo
accounts broken.
--nate
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Joe Schaefer
> <jo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Lists which are configured to either add a trailer,
>> remove certain mime components, or munge the
>> Subject header are susceptible to Y!'s DMARC
>> configuration.
>>
>> The munging is visible in this email message right
>> on the From: line. However it will not impact attempts
>> to send me direct replies since Y! also sets an
>> (unmunged) Reply-To header.
>>
>> Had I not done this many/most of your mail servers
>> would have rejected this email from being delivered
>> to you. I consider this solution an acceptable tradeoff
>> that does not force you to make any compensating
>> changes to your current list config.
>
> Thanks, Joe!
>
> It looks like the subject munging has been changed -- it used to add
> `[lucy-dev]` and now it's only adding `[dev]`. Rather than file a ticket to
> ask Infra to restore the old behavior, what do people think about getting rid
> of the tags -- on all four Lucy lists?
>
> Marvin Humphrey
Re: [lucy-dev] Re: [dev] DMARC munging active here
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Both techniques are acceptable and different folks have
different recommendations. Essentially the service providers
for mail are going to force mailing list operators to change,
and frankly the changes are minimal enough that it's hard
not to support their efforts to control fraudulent email using
DMARC.
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 1:54 PM, Nathan Kurz <na...@verse.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Right now I'm able to offer a choice: either drop all the mailing-list
> message munging, or let the mailing list munging extend to From
> and DKIM-Signature headers. Both will ensure delivery of mail
> for the foreseeable future, both will have no direct impact on how
> we use mail, no matter who decides to adopt rejection policies for DMARC
> now or in the future.
Given those choices, I'd say "Munge away!"
Is there an advantage to using a .INVALID suffix for the replaced From
address (as you did in the example) instead of the list address some articles
recommend: http://www.dmarc.org/supplemental/mailman-project-mlm-dmarc-reqs.html
--nate
[lucy-dev] Re: [dev] DMARC munging active here
Posted by Nathan Kurz <na...@verse.com>.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Right now I'm able to offer a choice: either drop all the mailing-list
> message munging, or let the mailing list munging extend to From
> and DKIM-Signature headers. Both will ensure delivery of mail
> for the foreseeable future, both will have no direct impact on how
> we use mail, no matter who decides to adopt rejection policies for DMARC
> now or in the future.
Given those choices, I'd say "Munge away!"
Is there an advantage to using a .INVALID suffix for the replaced From
address (as you did in the example) instead of the list address some articles
recommend: http://www.dmarc.org/supplemental/mailman-project-mlm-dmarc-reqs.html
--nate
[lucy-dev] Re: [dev] DMARC munging active here
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Right now I'm able to offer a choice: either drop all the mailing-list
message munging, or let the mailing list munging extend to From
and DKIM-Signature headers. Both will ensure delivery of mail
for the foreseeable future, both will have no direct impact on how
we use mail, no matter who decides to adopt rejection policies for DMARC
now or in the future.
On Monday, June 2, 2014 10:34 PM, Nathan Kurz <na...@verse.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Would you say the same thing about gmail accounts? Its only
> a matter of time before they follow Y!'s lead.
No, I presume that the Lucy lists have more people who use only GMail
or other Google-based accounts. My statement wasn't intended to be
prescriptive, just indicating that I personally would prefer
[list-tags] over Yahoo support. Having both would of course be
preferable than having to choose.
It seems like you've come up with a solution that provides both tags
and Yahoo support? Do you think this approach will continue to work
as others start enforcing DMARC? Would it make sense to append
.invalid all to all addresses now rather than waiting?
--nate
> On Monday, June 2, 2014 10:02 PM, Nathan Kurz <na...@verse.com> wrote:
>
> I have a strong reaction to keep the tags intact with the name of the
> list included. But perhaps I'm just stuck in my ways?
> I'll adapt if necessary, but also no have problem with leaving Yahoo
> accounts broken.
>
> --nate
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Joe Schaefer
>> <jo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> Lists which are configured to either add a trailer,
>>> remove certain mime components, or munge the
>>> Subject header are susceptible to Y!'s DMARC
>>> configuration.
>>>
>>> The munging is visible in this email message right
>>> on the From: line. However it will not impact attempts
>>> to send me direct replies since Y! also sets an
>>> (unmunged) Reply-To header.
>>>
>>> Had I not done this many/most of your mail servers
>>> would have rejected this email from being delivered
>>> to you. I consider this solution an acceptable tradeoff
>>> that does not force you to make any compensating
>>> changes to your current list config.
>>
>> Thanks, Joe!
>>
>> It looks like the subject munging has been changed -- it used to add
>> `[lucy-dev]` and now it's only adding `[dev]`. Rather than file a ticket
>> to
>> ask Infra to restore the old behavior, what do people think about getting
>> rid
>> of the tags -- on all four Lucy lists?
>>
>> Marvin Humphrey
>
>
[lucy-dev] Re: [dev] DMARC munging active here
Posted by Nathan Kurz <na...@verse.com>.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Would you say the same thing about gmail accounts? Its only
> a matter of time before they follow Y!'s lead.
No, I presume that the Lucy lists have more people who use only GMail
or other Google-based accounts. My statement wasn't intended to be
prescriptive, just indicating that I personally would prefer
[list-tags] over Yahoo support. Having both would of course be
preferable than having to choose.
It seems like you've come up with a solution that provides both tags
and Yahoo support? Do you think this approach will continue to work
as others start enforcing DMARC? Would it make sense to append
.invalid all to all addresses now rather than waiting?
--nate
> On Monday, June 2, 2014 10:02 PM, Nathan Kurz <na...@verse.com> wrote:
>
> I have a strong reaction to keep the tags intact with the name of the
> list included. But perhaps I'm just stuck in my ways?
> I'll adapt if necessary, but also no have problem with leaving Yahoo
> accounts broken.
>
> --nate
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Joe Schaefer
>> <jo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> Lists which are configured to either add a trailer,
>>> remove certain mime components, or munge the
>>> Subject header are susceptible to Y!'s DMARC
>>> configuration.
>>>
>>> The munging is visible in this email message right
>>> on the From: line. However it will not impact attempts
>>> to send me direct replies since Y! also sets an
>>> (unmunged) Reply-To header.
>>>
>>> Had I not done this many/most of your mail servers
>>> would have rejected this email from being delivered
>>> to you. I consider this solution an acceptable tradeoff
>>> that does not force you to make any compensating
>>> changes to your current list config.
>>
>> Thanks, Joe!
>>
>> It looks like the subject munging has been changed -- it used to add
>> `[lucy-dev]` and now it's only adding `[dev]`. Rather than file a ticket
>> to
>> ask Infra to restore the old behavior, what do people think about getting
>> rid
>> of the tags -- on all four Lucy lists?
>>
>> Marvin Humphrey
>
>