You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to infrastructure-dev@apache.org by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> on 2014/06/01 18:24:04 UTC
[POLL] Y! DMARC solution preferences
Everyone is welcome to participate in this poll as
it affects a wide cross-section of the org. Please
cast your vote on one of the following 2 choices:
[ ] - enable Y! "From" and "DKIM-Signature" header munging,
impacting only Y! mailing list authors in a minimal way
(see THIS MESSAGE's headers for actual details of the changes)
[ ] - change configurations to "-FXT", disabling all message munging
for everyone equally
See corresponding discussion on infrastructure@
for details of affected lists and more information
on the choices available. Thx.
Re: [DISCUSS] Y! DMARC solution preferences
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
So basically I changed the script to do dynamic DMARC policy
lookups, so there's no longer a need to hard-code domains as
the issue changes over time.
On Sunday, June 1, 2014 9:04 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
>Doing some digging yielded the following additional domains with
>a p=reject DMARC policy:
>
>twitter.com
>facebook.com
>linkedin.com
>
>
>
>
>
>On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:54 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>Check libcloud lists for the -f option and general@incubator
>>for -t. Trailers (-t) are far more common than -f (Subject prefix).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:51 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 2 June 2014 00:45, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> No sebb, check the list archives on people.apache.org. The
>>>> difference is that you received a courtesy-copy directly from
>>>> me for certain messages.
>>>>
>>>
>>>OK I see.
>>>
>>>What about the -f and -t options?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:42 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On 2 June 2014 00:18, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> This list strips text/html attachments for example, which would need to
>>>>>> stop.
>>>>>
>>>>>However, it does not _always_ seem to strip HTML multipart sections.
>>>>>For example, message IDs
>>>>>
>>>>>Message-ID: <14...@web121802.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
>>>>>and
>>>>>Message-ID: <14...@web121806.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>in this thread have HTML alternatives, whereas the first message in
>>>>>the thread does not have an HTML alternative
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps a bug in ezmlm?
>>>>>
>>>>>The -x option does not affect all messages, as some people post in plain text.
>>>>>So it's not always obvious.
>>>>>
>>>>>It would also be useful to see the effect of not having the -f and -t options.
>>>>>Do any lists use -f (subject prefixing)?
>>>>>What about -t (trailers)?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:17 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2 June 2014 00:04, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> board@, members@, infrastructure@, dev@httpd are fine as-is.
>>>>>>> About half of them need no changes, but many of those
>>>>>>> that do are public, like this list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I cannot say I have noticed a difference between infra and infra-dev.
>>>>>> What are that infra-dev feature(s) that would need to be dropped?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:01 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1 June 2014 23:52, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Talking to a few people about this privately, it seems that
>>>>>>>> there is a perception that munging Y! From headers is the
>>>>>>>> least invasive option of the two.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But this is a brand-spanking new issue and it's hard to gauge
>>>>>>>> how service providers will react. Y! could step back, or others
>>>>>>>> could step on board. The only real future-proof option is to
>>>>>>>> change list configs to no longer alter content or headers, but
>>>>>>>> I want to let the community weigh in on their preferences before
>>>>>>>> taking action.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are there examples of lists that don't change headers/content that we
>>>>>>> can look at?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 5:28 PM, Joe Schaefer
>>>>>>>> <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If there are any questions or comments about this issue,
>>>>>>>>>let's place them on this thread.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The underlying issue is that in about mid-April Yahoo! (and now AOL)
>>>>>>>>>changed their DNS-advertised DMARC policy for their domain to REJECT
>>>>>>>>> messages that fail the DMARC tests (revolving around SPF and DKIM). SPF
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>a non-issue for us currently, but DKIM is because it's a signed hash of
>>>>>>>>> various headers and the message body itself- things which some of our
>>>>>>>>> lists
>>>>>>>>> are configured to alter by choice.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What the POLL offers is a choice of redress plan: either we can munge Y!
>>>>>>>> >From addresses to avoid their DMARC policy check, or we can reconfigure
>>>>>>>>>our lists not to alter the message in any way. It looks like Y! is
>>>>>>>>> committed
>>>>>>>>>to this policy change so the onus is on us, if we still want to ensure Y!
>>>>>>>>> users'
>>>>>>>>>messages are deliverable to us, to change how we operate roughly 50% of
>>>>>>>>>our available lists.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sunday, June 1, 2014 12:24 PM, Joe Schaefer
>>>>>>>>> <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Everyone is welcome to participate in this poll as
>>>>>>>>>>it affects a wide cross-section of the org. Please
>>>>>>>>>>cast your vote on one of the following 2 choices:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>[ ] - enable Y! "From" and "DKIM-Signature" header munging,
>>>>>>>>>> impacting only Y! mailing list authors in a minimal way
>>>>>>>>>> (see THIS MESSAGE's headers for actual details of the changes)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>[ ] - change configurations to "-FXT", disabling all message munging
>>>>>>>>>> for everyone equally
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>See corresponding discussion on infrastructure@
>>>>>>>>>>for details of affected lists and more information
>>>>>>>>>>on the choices available. Thx.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Y! DMARC solution preferences
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Doing some digging yielded the following additional domains with
a p=reject DMARC policy:
twitter.com
facebook.com
linkedin.com
On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:54 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
>Check libcloud lists for the -f option and general@incubator
>for -t. Trailers (-t) are far more common than -f (Subject prefix).
>
>
>
>
>On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:51 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>On 2 June 2014 00:45, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> No sebb, check the list archives on people.apache.org. The
>>> difference is that you received a courtesy-copy directly from
>>> me for certain messages.
>>>
>>
>>OK I see.
>>
>>What about the -f and -t options?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:42 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On 2 June 2014 00:18, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> This list strips text/html attachments for example, which would need to
>>>>> stop.
>>>>
>>>>However, it does not _always_ seem to strip HTML multipart sections.
>>>>For example, message IDs
>>>>
>>>>Message-ID: <14...@web121802.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
>>>>and
>>>>Message-ID: <14...@web121806.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
>>>>
>>>>in this thread have HTML alternatives, whereas the first message in
>>>>the thread does not have an HTML alternative
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps a bug in ezmlm?
>>>>
>>>>The -x option does not affect all messages, as some people post in plain text.
>>>>So it's not always obvious.
>>>>
>>>>It would also be useful to see the effect of not having the -f and -t options.
>>>>Do any lists use -f (subject prefixing)?
>>>>What about -t (trailers)?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:17 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2 June 2014 00:04, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> board@, members@, infrastructure@, dev@httpd are fine as-is.
>>>>>> About half of them need no changes, but many of those
>>>>>> that do are public, like this list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I cannot say I have noticed a difference between infra and infra-dev.
>>>>> What are that infra-dev feature(s) that would need to be dropped?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:01 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1 June 2014 23:52, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> Talking to a few people about this privately, it seems that
>>>>>>> there is a perception that munging Y! From headers is the
>>>>>>> least invasive option of the two.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But this is a brand-spanking new issue and it's hard to gauge
>>>>>>> how service providers will react. Y! could step back, or others
>>>>>>> could step on board. The only real future-proof option is to
>>>>>>> change list configs to no longer alter content or headers, but
>>>>>>> I want to let the community weigh in on their preferences before
>>>>>>> taking action.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are there examples of lists that don't change headers/content that we
>>>>>> can look at?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 5:28 PM, Joe Schaefer
>>>>>>> <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If there are any questions or comments about this issue,
>>>>>>>>let's place them on this thread.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The underlying issue is that in about mid-April Yahoo! (and now AOL)
>>>>>>>>changed their DNS-advertised DMARC policy for their domain to REJECT
>>>>>>>> messages that fail the DMARC tests (revolving around SPF and DKIM). SPF
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>a non-issue for us currently, but DKIM is because it's a signed hash of
>>>>>>>> various headers and the message body itself- things which some of our
>>>>>>>> lists
>>>>>>>> are configured to alter by choice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What the POLL offers is a choice of redress plan: either we can munge Y!
>>>>>>> >From addresses to avoid their DMARC policy check, or we can reconfigure
>>>>>>>>our lists not to alter the message in any way. It looks like Y! is
>>>>>>>> committed
>>>>>>>>to this policy change so the onus is on us, if we still want to ensure Y!
>>>>>>>> users'
>>>>>>>>messages are deliverable to us, to change how we operate roughly 50% of
>>>>>>>>our available lists.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sunday, June 1, 2014 12:24 PM, Joe Schaefer
>>>>>>>> <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Everyone is welcome to participate in this poll as
>>>>>>>>>it affects a wide cross-section of the org. Please
>>>>>>>>>cast your vote on one of the following 2 choices:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>[ ] - enable Y! "From" and "DKIM-Signature" header munging,
>>>>>>>>> impacting only Y! mailing list authors in a minimal way
>>>>>>>>> (see THIS MESSAGE's headers for actual details of the changes)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>[ ] - change configurations to "-FXT", disabling all message munging
>>>>>>>>> for everyone equally
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>See corresponding discussion on infrastructure@
>>>>>>>>>for details of affected lists and more information
>>>>>>>>>on the choices available. Thx.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Y! DMARC solution preferences
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Check libcloud lists for the -f option and general@incubator
for -t. Trailers (-t) are far more common than -f (Subject prefix).
On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:51 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>On 2 June 2014 00:45, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> No sebb, check the list archives on people.apache.org. The
>> difference is that you received a courtesy-copy directly from
>> me for certain messages.
>>
>
>OK I see.
>
>What about the -f and -t options?
>
>
>>
>> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:42 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 2 June 2014 00:18, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> This list strips text/html attachments for example, which would need to
>>>> stop.
>>>
>>>However, it does not _always_ seem to strip HTML multipart sections.
>>>For example, message IDs
>>>
>>>Message-ID: <14...@web121802.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
>>>and
>>>Message-ID: <14...@web121806.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
>>>
>>>in this thread have HTML alternatives, whereas the first message in
>>>the thread does not have an HTML alternative
>>>
>>>Perhaps a bug in ezmlm?
>>>
>>>The -x option does not affect all messages, as some people post in plain text.
>>>So it's not always obvious.
>>>
>>>It would also be useful to see the effect of not having the -f and -t options.
>>>Do any lists use -f (subject prefixing)?
>>>What about -t (trailers)?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:17 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2 June 2014 00:04, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> board@, members@, infrastructure@, dev@httpd are fine as-is.
>>>>> About half of them need no changes, but many of those
>>>>> that do are public, like this list.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I cannot say I have noticed a difference between infra and infra-dev.
>>>> What are that infra-dev feature(s) that would need to be dropped?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:01 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1 June 2014 23:52, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> Talking to a few people about this privately, it seems that
>>>>>> there is a perception that munging Y! From headers is the
>>>>>> least invasive option of the two.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But this is a brand-spanking new issue and it's hard to gauge
>>>>>> how service providers will react. Y! could step back, or others
>>>>>> could step on board. The only real future-proof option is to
>>>>>> change list configs to no longer alter content or headers, but
>>>>>> I want to let the community weigh in on their preferences before
>>>>>> taking action.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are there examples of lists that don't change headers/content that we
>>>>> can look at?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 5:28 PM, Joe Schaefer
>>>>>> <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If there are any questions or comments about this issue,
>>>>>>>let's place them on this thread.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The underlying issue is that in about mid-April Yahoo! (and now AOL)
>>>>>>>changed their DNS-advertised DMARC policy for their domain to REJECT
>>>>>>> messages that fail the DMARC tests (revolving around SPF and DKIM). SPF
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>a non-issue for us currently, but DKIM is because it's a signed hash of
>>>>>>> various headers and the message body itself- things which some of our
>>>>>>> lists
>>>>>>> are configured to alter by choice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What the POLL offers is a choice of redress plan: either we can munge Y!
>>>>>> >From addresses to avoid their DMARC policy check, or we can reconfigure
>>>>>>>our lists not to alter the message in any way. It looks like Y! is
>>>>>>> committed
>>>>>>>to this policy change so the onus is on us, if we still want to ensure Y!
>>>>>>> users'
>>>>>>>messages are deliverable to us, to change how we operate roughly 50% of
>>>>>>>our available lists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sunday, June 1, 2014 12:24 PM, Joe Schaefer
>>>>>>> <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Everyone is welcome to participate in this poll as
>>>>>>>>it affects a wide cross-section of the org. Please
>>>>>>>>cast your vote on one of the following 2 choices:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>[ ] - enable Y! "From" and "DKIM-Signature" header munging,
>>>>>>>> impacting only Y! mailing list authors in a minimal way
>>>>>>>> (see THIS MESSAGE's headers for actual details of the changes)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>[ ] - change configurations to "-FXT", disabling all message munging
>>>>>>>> for everyone equally
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>See corresponding discussion on infrastructure@
>>>>>>>>for details of affected lists and more information
>>>>>>>>on the choices available. Thx.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Y! DMARC solution preferences
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 2 June 2014 00:45, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> No sebb, check the list archives on people.apache.org. The
> difference is that you received a courtesy-copy directly from
> me for certain messages.
>
OK I see.
What about the -f and -t options?
>
> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:42 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>On 2 June 2014 00:18, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> This list strips text/html attachments for example, which would need to
>>> stop.
>>
>>However, it does not _always_ seem to strip HTML multipart sections.
>>For example, message IDs
>>
>>Message-ID: <14...@web121802.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
>>and
>>Message-ID: <14...@web121806.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
>>
>>in this thread have HTML alternatives, whereas the first message in
>>the thread does not have an HTML alternative
>>
>>Perhaps a bug in ezmlm?
>>
>>The -x option does not affect all messages, as some people post in plain text.
>>So it's not always obvious.
>>
>>It would also be useful to see the effect of not having the -f and -t options.
>>Do any lists use -f (subject prefixing)?
>>What about -t (trailers)?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:17 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2 June 2014 00:04, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> board@, members@, infrastructure@, dev@httpd are fine as-is.
>>>> About half of them need no changes, but many of those
>>>> that do are public, like this list.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I cannot say I have noticed a difference between infra and infra-dev.
>>> What are that infra-dev feature(s) that would need to be dropped?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:01 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1 June 2014 23:52, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Talking to a few people about this privately, it seems that
>>>>> there is a perception that munging Y! From headers is the
>>>>> least invasive option of the two.
>>>>>
>>>>> But this is a brand-spanking new issue and it's hard to gauge
>>>>> how service providers will react. Y! could step back, or others
>>>>> could step on board. The only real future-proof option is to
>>>>> change list configs to no longer alter content or headers, but
>>>>> I want to let the community weigh in on their preferences before
>>>>> taking action.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are there examples of lists that don't change headers/content that we
>>>> can look at?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 5:28 PM, Joe Schaefer
>>>>> <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If there are any questions or comments about this issue,
>>>>>>let's place them on this thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The underlying issue is that in about mid-April Yahoo! (and now AOL)
>>>>>>changed their DNS-advertised DMARC policy for their domain to REJECT
>>>>>> messages that fail the DMARC tests (revolving around SPF and DKIM). SPF
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>a non-issue for us currently, but DKIM is because it's a signed hash of
>>>>>> various headers and the message body itself- things which some of our
>>>>>> lists
>>>>>> are configured to alter by choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What the POLL offers is a choice of redress plan: either we can munge Y!
>>>>> >From addresses to avoid their DMARC policy check, or we can reconfigure
>>>>>>our lists not to alter the message in any way. It looks like Y! is
>>>>>> committed
>>>>>>to this policy change so the onus is on us, if we still want to ensure Y!
>>>>>> users'
>>>>>>messages are deliverable to us, to change how we operate roughly 50% of
>>>>>>our available lists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sunday, June 1, 2014 12:24 PM, Joe Schaefer
>>>>>> <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Everyone is welcome to participate in this poll as
>>>>>>>it affects a wide cross-section of the org. Please
>>>>>>>cast your vote on one of the following 2 choices:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[ ] - enable Y! "From" and "DKIM-Signature" header munging,
>>>>>>> impacting only Y! mailing list authors in a minimal way
>>>>>>> (see THIS MESSAGE's headers for actual details of the changes)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[ ] - change configurations to "-FXT", disabling all message munging
>>>>>>> for everyone equally
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>See corresponding discussion on infrastructure@
>>>>>>>for details of affected lists and more information
>>>>>>>on the choices available. Thx.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Y! DMARC solution preferences
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
No sebb, check the list archives on people.apache.org. The
difference is that you received a courtesy-copy directly from
me for certain messages.
On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:42 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>On 2 June 2014 00:18, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> This list strips text/html attachments for example, which would need to
>> stop.
>
>However, it does not _always_ seem to strip HTML multipart sections.
>For example, message IDs
>
>Message-ID: <14...@web121802.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
>and
>Message-ID: <14...@web121806.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
>
>in this thread have HTML alternatives, whereas the first message in
>the thread does not have an HTML alternative
>
>Perhaps a bug in ezmlm?
>
>The -x option does not affect all messages, as some people post in plain text.
>So it's not always obvious.
>
>It would also be useful to see the effect of not having the -f and -t options.
>Do any lists use -f (subject prefixing)?
>What about -t (trailers)?
>
>
>>
>> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:17 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2 June 2014 00:04, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> board@, members@, infrastructure@, dev@httpd are fine as-is.
>>> About half of them need no changes, but many of those
>>> that do are public, like this list.
>>>
>>
>> I cannot say I have noticed a difference between infra and infra-dev.
>> What are that infra-dev feature(s) that would need to be dropped?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:01 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1 June 2014 23:52, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Talking to a few people about this privately, it seems that
>>>> there is a perception that munging Y! From headers is the
>>>> least invasive option of the two.
>>>>
>>>> But this is a brand-spanking new issue and it's hard to gauge
>>>> how service providers will react. Y! could step back, or others
>>>> could step on board. The only real future-proof option is to
>>>> change list configs to no longer alter content or headers, but
>>>> I want to let the community weigh in on their preferences before
>>>> taking action.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are there examples of lists that don't change headers/content that we
>>> can look at?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 5:28 PM, Joe Schaefer
>>>> <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If there are any questions or comments about this issue,
>>>>>let's place them on this thread.
>>>>>
>>>>>The underlying issue is that in about mid-April Yahoo! (and now AOL)
>>>>>changed their DNS-advertised DMARC policy for their domain to REJECT
>>>>> messages that fail the DMARC tests (revolving around SPF and DKIM). SPF
>>>>> is
>>>>>a non-issue for us currently, but DKIM is because it's a signed hash of
>>>>> various headers and the message body itself- things which some of our
>>>>> lists
>>>>> are configured to alter by choice.
>>>>>
>>>>>What the POLL offers is a choice of redress plan: either we can munge Y!
>>>> >From addresses to avoid their DMARC policy check, or we can reconfigure
>>>>>our lists not to alter the message in any way. It looks like Y! is
>>>>> committed
>>>>>to this policy change so the onus is on us, if we still want to ensure Y!
>>>>> users'
>>>>>messages are deliverable to us, to change how we operate roughly 50% of
>>>>>our available lists.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On Sunday, June 1, 2014 12:24 PM, Joe Schaefer
>>>>> <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Everyone is welcome to participate in this poll as
>>>>>>it affects a wide cross-section of the org. Please
>>>>>>cast your vote on one of the following 2 choices:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[ ] - enable Y! "From" and "DKIM-Signature" header munging,
>>>>>> impacting only Y! mailing list authors in a minimal way
>>>>>> (see THIS MESSAGE's headers for actual details of the changes)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[ ] - change configurations to "-FXT", disabling all message munging
>>>>>> for everyone equally
>>>>>>
>>>>>>See corresponding discussion on infrastructure@
>>>>>>for details of affected lists and more information
>>>>>>on the choices available. Thx.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Y! DMARC solution preferences
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 2 June 2014 00:18, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This list strips text/html attachments for example, which would need to
> stop.
However, it does not _always_ seem to strip HTML multipart sections.
For example, message IDs
Message-ID: <14...@web121802.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
and
Message-ID: <14...@web121806.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
in this thread have HTML alternatives, whereas the first message in
the thread does not have an HTML alternative
Perhaps a bug in ezmlm?
The -x option does not affect all messages, as some people post in plain text.
So it's not always obvious.
It would also be useful to see the effect of not having the -f and -t options.
Do any lists use -f (subject prefixing)?
What about -t (trailers)?
>
> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:17 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2 June 2014 00:04, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> board@, members@, infrastructure@, dev@httpd are fine as-is.
>> About half of them need no changes, but many of those
>> that do are public, like this list.
>>
>
> I cannot say I have noticed a difference between infra and infra-dev.
> What are that infra-dev feature(s) that would need to be dropped?
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:01 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1 June 2014 23:52, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> Talking to a few people about this privately, it seems that
>>> there is a perception that munging Y! From headers is the
>>> least invasive option of the two.
>>>
>>> But this is a brand-spanking new issue and it's hard to gauge
>>> how service providers will react. Y! could step back, or others
>>> could step on board. The only real future-proof option is to
>>> change list configs to no longer alter content or headers, but
>>> I want to let the community weigh in on their preferences before
>>> taking action.
>>>
>>
>> Are there examples of lists that don't change headers/content that we
>> can look at?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 5:28 PM, Joe Schaefer
>>> <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If there are any questions or comments about this issue,
>>>>let's place them on this thread.
>>>>
>>>>The underlying issue is that in about mid-April Yahoo! (and now AOL)
>>>>changed their DNS-advertised DMARC policy for their domain to REJECT
>>>> messages that fail the DMARC tests (revolving around SPF and DKIM). SPF
>>>> is
>>>>a non-issue for us currently, but DKIM is because it's a signed hash of
>>>> various headers and the message body itself- things which some of our
>>>> lists
>>>> are configured to alter by choice.
>>>>
>>>>What the POLL offers is a choice of redress plan: either we can munge Y!
>>> >From addresses to avoid their DMARC policy check, or we can reconfigure
>>>>our lists not to alter the message in any way. It looks like Y! is
>>>> committed
>>>>to this policy change so the onus is on us, if we still want to ensure Y!
>>>> users'
>>>>messages are deliverable to us, to change how we operate roughly 50% of
>>>>our available lists.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Sunday, June 1, 2014 12:24 PM, Joe Schaefer
>>>> <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Everyone is welcome to participate in this poll as
>>>>>it affects a wide cross-section of the org. Please
>>>>>cast your vote on one of the following 2 choices:
>>>>>
>>>>>[ ] - enable Y! "From" and "DKIM-Signature" header munging,
>>>>> impacting only Y! mailing list authors in a minimal way
>>>>> (see THIS MESSAGE's headers for actual details of the changes)
>>>>>
>>>>>[ ] - change configurations to "-FXT", disabling all message munging
>>>>> for everyone equally
>>>>>
>>>>>See corresponding discussion on infrastructure@
>>>>>for details of affected lists and more information
>>>>>on the choices available. Thx.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Y! DMARC solution preferences
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
This list strips text/html attachments for example, which would need to stop.
On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:17 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>On 2 June 2014 00:04, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> board@, members@, infrastructure@, dev@httpd are fine as-is.
>> About half of them need no changes, but many of those
>> that do are public, like this list.
>>
>
>I cannot say I have noticed a difference between infra and infra-dev.
>What are that infra-dev feature(s) that would need to be dropped?
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:01 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1 June 2014 23:52, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> Talking to a few people about this privately, it seems that
>>> there is a perception that munging Y! From headers is the
>>> least invasive option of the two.
>>>
>>> But this is a brand-spanking new issue and it's hard to gauge
>>> how service providers will react. Y! could step back, or others
>>> could step on board. The only real future-proof option is to
>>> change list configs to no longer alter content or headers, but
>>> I want to let the community weigh in on their preferences before
>>> taking action.
>>>
>>
>> Are there examples of lists that don't change headers/content that we
>> can look at?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 5:28 PM, Joe Schaefer
>>> <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If there are any questions or comments about this issue,
>>>>let's place them on this thread.
>>>>
>>>>The underlying issue is that in about mid-April Yahoo! (and now AOL)
>>>>changed their DNS-advertised DMARC policy for their domain to REJECT
>>>> messages that fail the DMARC tests (revolving around SPF and DKIM). SPF is
>>>>a non-issue for us currently, but DKIM is because it's a signed hash of
>>>> various headers and the message body itself- things which some of our lists
>>>> are configured to alter by choice.
>>>>
>>>>What the POLL offers is a choice of redress plan: either we can munge Y!
>>> >From addresses to avoid their DMARC policy check, or we can reconfigure
>>>>our lists not to alter the message in any way. It looks like Y! is
>>>> committed
>>>>to this policy change so the onus is on us, if we still want to ensure Y!
>>>> users'
>>>>messages are deliverable to us, to change how we operate roughly 50% of
>>>>our available lists.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Sunday, June 1, 2014 12:24 PM, Joe Schaefer
>>>> <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Everyone is welcome to participate in this poll as
>>>>>it affects a wide cross-section of the org. Please
>>>>>cast your vote on one of the following 2 choices:
>>>>>
>>>>>[ ] - enable Y! "From" and "DKIM-Signature" header munging,
>>>>> impacting only Y! mailing list authors in a minimal way
>>>>> (see THIS MESSAGE's headers for actual details of the changes)
>>>>>
>>>>>[ ] - change configurations to "-FXT", disabling all message munging
>>>>> for everyone equally
>>>>>
>>>>>See corresponding discussion on infrastructure@
>>>>>for details of affected lists and more information
>>>>>on the choices available. Thx.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Y! DMARC solution preferences
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 2 June 2014 00:04, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> board@, members@, infrastructure@, dev@httpd are fine as-is.
> About half of them need no changes, but many of those
> that do are public, like this list.
>
I cannot say I have noticed a difference between infra and infra-dev.
What are that infra-dev feature(s) that would need to be dropped?
>
>
> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:01 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1 June 2014 23:52, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Talking to a few people about this privately, it seems that
>> there is a perception that munging Y! From headers is the
>> least invasive option of the two.
>>
>> But this is a brand-spanking new issue and it's hard to gauge
>> how service providers will react. Y! could step back, or others
>> could step on board. The only real future-proof option is to
>> change list configs to no longer alter content or headers, but
>> I want to let the community weigh in on their preferences before
>> taking action.
>>
>
> Are there examples of lists that don't change headers/content that we
> can look at?
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 5:28 PM, Joe Schaefer
>> <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>If there are any questions or comments about this issue,
>>>let's place them on this thread.
>>>
>>>The underlying issue is that in about mid-April Yahoo! (and now AOL)
>>>changed their DNS-advertised DMARC policy for their domain to REJECT
>>> messages that fail the DMARC tests (revolving around SPF and DKIM). SPF is
>>>a non-issue for us currently, but DKIM is because it's a signed hash of
>>> various headers and the message body itself- things which some of our lists
>>> are configured to alter by choice.
>>>
>>>What the POLL offers is a choice of redress plan: either we can munge Y!
>> >From addresses to avoid their DMARC policy check, or we can reconfigure
>>>our lists not to alter the message in any way. It looks like Y! is
>>> committed
>>>to this policy change so the onus is on us, if we still want to ensure Y!
>>> users'
>>>messages are deliverable to us, to change how we operate roughly 50% of
>>>our available lists.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Sunday, June 1, 2014 12:24 PM, Joe Schaefer
>>> <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Everyone is welcome to participate in this poll as
>>>>it affects a wide cross-section of the org. Please
>>>>cast your vote on one of the following 2 choices:
>>>>
>>>>[ ] - enable Y! "From" and "DKIM-Signature" header munging,
>>>> impacting only Y! mailing list authors in a minimal way
>>>> (see THIS MESSAGE's headers for actual details of the changes)
>>>>
>>>>[ ] - change configurations to "-FXT", disabling all message munging
>>>> for everyone equally
>>>>
>>>>See corresponding discussion on infrastructure@
>>>>for details of affected lists and more information
>>>>on the choices available. Thx.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Y! DMARC solution preferences
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
board@, members@, infrastructure@, dev@httpd are fine as-is.
About half of them need no changes, but many of those
that do are public, like this list.
On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:01 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>On 1 June 2014 23:52, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Talking to a few people about this privately, it seems that
>> there is a perception that munging Y! From headers is the
>> least invasive option of the two.
>>
>> But this is a brand-spanking new issue and it's hard to gauge
>> how service providers will react. Y! could step back, or others
>> could step on board. The only real future-proof option is to
>> change list configs to no longer alter content or headers, but
>> I want to let the community weigh in on their preferences before
>> taking action.
>>
>
>Are there examples of lists that don't change headers/content that we
>can look at?
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 5:28 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>If there are any questions or comments about this issue,
>>>let's place them on this thread.
>>>
>>>The underlying issue is that in about mid-April Yahoo! (and now AOL)
>>>changed their DNS-advertised DMARC policy for their domain to REJECT messages that fail the DMARC tests (revolving around SPF and DKIM). SPF is
>>>a non-issue for us currently, but DKIM is because it's a signed hash of various headers and the message body itself- things which some of our lists are configured to alter by choice.
>>>
>>>What the POLL offers is a choice of redress plan: either we can munge Y!
>> >From addresses to avoid their DMARC policy check, or we can reconfigure
>>>our lists not to alter the message in any way. It looks like Y! is committed
>>>to this policy change so the onus is on us, if we still want to ensure Y! users'
>>>messages are deliverable to us, to change how we operate roughly 50% of
>>>our available lists.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Sunday, June 1, 2014 12:24 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Everyone is welcome to participate in this poll as
>>>>it affects a wide cross-section of the org. Please
>>>>cast your vote on one of the following 2 choices:
>>>>
>>>>[ ] - enable Y! "From" and "DKIM-Signature" header munging,
>>>> impacting only Y! mailing list authors in a minimal way
>>>> (see THIS MESSAGE's headers for actual details of the changes)
>>>>
>>>>[ ] - change configurations to "-FXT", disabling all message munging
>>>> for everyone equally
>>>>
>>>>See corresponding discussion on infrastructure@
>>>>for details of affected lists and more information
>>>>on the choices available. Thx.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Y! DMARC solution preferences
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 1 June 2014 23:52, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Talking to a few people about this privately, it seems that
> there is a perception that munging Y! From headers is the
> least invasive option of the two.
>
> But this is a brand-spanking new issue and it's hard to gauge
> how service providers will react. Y! could step back, or others
> could step on board. The only real future-proof option is to
> change list configs to no longer alter content or headers, but
> I want to let the community weigh in on their preferences before
> taking action.
>
Are there examples of lists that don't change headers/content that we
can look at?
>
>
> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 5:28 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>If there are any questions or comments about this issue,
>>let's place them on this thread.
>>
>>The underlying issue is that in about mid-April Yahoo! (and now AOL)
>>changed their DNS-advertised DMARC policy for their domain to REJECT messages that fail the DMARC tests (revolving around SPF and DKIM). SPF is
>>a non-issue for us currently, but DKIM is because it's a signed hash of various headers and the message body itself- things which some of our lists are configured to alter by choice.
>>
>>What the POLL offers is a choice of redress plan: either we can munge Y!
> >From addresses to avoid their DMARC policy check, or we can reconfigure
>>our lists not to alter the message in any way. It looks like Y! is committed
>>to this policy change so the onus is on us, if we still want to ensure Y! users'
>>messages are deliverable to us, to change how we operate roughly 50% of
>>our available lists.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Sunday, June 1, 2014 12:24 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Everyone is welcome to participate in this poll as
>>>it affects a wide cross-section of the org. Please
>>>cast your vote on one of the following 2 choices:
>>>
>>>[ ] - enable Y! "From" and "DKIM-Signature" header munging,
>>> impacting only Y! mailing list authors in a minimal way
>>> (see THIS MESSAGE's headers for actual details of the changes)
>>>
>>>[ ] - change configurations to "-FXT", disabling all message munging
>>> for everyone equally
>>>
>>>See corresponding discussion on infrastructure@
>>>for details of affected lists and more information
>>>on the choices available. Thx.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Y! DMARC solution preferences
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Talking to a few people about this privately, it seems that
there is a perception that munging Y! From headers is the
least invasive option of the two.
But this is a brand-spanking new issue and it's hard to gauge
how service providers will react. Y! could step back, or others
could step on board. The only real future-proof option is to
change list configs to no longer alter content or headers, but
I want to let the community weigh in on their preferences before
taking action.
On Sunday, June 1, 2014 5:28 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
>If there are any questions or comments about this issue,
>let's place them on this thread.
>
>The underlying issue is that in about mid-April Yahoo! (and now AOL)
>changed their DNS-advertised DMARC policy for their domain to REJECT messages that fail the DMARC tests (revolving around SPF and DKIM). SPF is
>a non-issue for us currently, but DKIM is because it's a signed hash of various headers and the message body itself- things which some of our lists are configured to alter by choice.
>
>What the POLL offers is a choice of redress plan: either we can munge Y!
>From addresses to avoid their DMARC policy check, or we can reconfigure
>our lists not to alter the message in any way. It looks like Y! is committed
>to this policy change so the onus is on us, if we still want to ensure Y! users'
>messages are deliverable to us, to change how we operate roughly 50% of
>our available lists.
>
>
>
>
>On Sunday, June 1, 2014 12:24 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Everyone is welcome to participate in this poll as
>>it affects a wide cross-section of the org. Please
>>cast your vote on one of the following 2 choices:
>>
>>[ ] - enable Y! "From" and "DKIM-Signature" header munging,
>> impacting only Y! mailing list authors in a minimal way
>> (see THIS MESSAGE's headers for actual details of the changes)
>>
>>[ ] - change configurations to "-FXT", disabling all message munging
>> for everyone equally
>>
>>See corresponding discussion on infrastructure@
>>for details of affected lists and more information
>>on the choices available. Thx.
>>
>>
>
>
[DISCUSS] Y! DMARC solution preferences
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
If there are any questions or comments about this issue,
let's place them on this thread.
The underlying issue is that in about mid-April Yahoo! (and now AOL)
changed their DNS-advertised DMARC policy for their domain to REJECT messages that fail the DMARC tests (revolving around SPF and DKIM). SPF is
a non-issue for us currently, but DKIM is because it's a signed hash of various headers and the message body itself- things which some of our lists are configured to alter by choice.
What the POLL offers is a choice of redress plan: either we can munge Y!
From addresses to avoid their DMARC policy check, or we can reconfigure
our lists not to alter the message in any way. It looks like Y! is committed
to this policy change so the onus is on us, if we still want to ensure Y! users'
messages are deliverable to us, to change how we operate roughly 50% of
our available lists.
On Sunday, June 1, 2014 12:24 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>Everyone is welcome to participate in this poll as
>it affects a wide cross-section of the org. Please
>cast your vote on one of the following 2 choices:
>
>[ ] - enable Y! "From" and "DKIM-Signature" header munging,
> impacting only Y! mailing list authors in a minimal way
> (see THIS MESSAGE's headers for actual details of the changes)
>
>[ ] - change configurations to "-FXT", disabling all message munging
> for everyone equally
>
>See corresponding discussion on infrastructure@
>for details of affected lists and more information
>on the choices available. Thx.
>
>
Re: [POLL] Y! DMARC solution preferences
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Thanks Mark. I've now blogged about the issue and our solution at
DMARC filtering on lists that munge messages : Apache Infrastructure Team
DMARC filtering on lists that munge messages : Apache In...
DMARC filtering on lists that munge messages
View on blogs.apache.org Preview by Yahoo
HTH
On Monday, June 2, 2014 3:30 AM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
On 01/06/2014 17:24, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>
> Everyone is welcome to participate in this poll as
> it affects a wide cross-section of the org. Please
> cast your vote on one of the following 2 choices:
>
> [X] - enable Y! "From" and "DKIM-Signature" header munging,
> impacting only Y! mailing list authors in a minimal way
> (see THIS MESSAGE's headers for actual details of the changes)
And apply the same munging to any other domains as necessary.
Mark
> [ ] - change configurations to "-FXT", disabling all message munging
> for everyone equally
>
> See corresponding discussion on infrastructure@
> for details of affected lists and more information
> on the choices available. Thx.
>
Re: [POLL] Y! DMARC solution preferences
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 01/06/2014 17:24, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>
> Everyone is welcome to participate in this poll as
> it affects a wide cross-section of the org. Please
> cast your vote on one of the following 2 choices:
>
> [X] - enable Y! "From" and "DKIM-Signature" header munging,
> impacting only Y! mailing list authors in a minimal way
> (see THIS MESSAGE's headers for actual details of the changes)
And apply the same munging to any other domains as necessary.
Mark
> [ ] - change configurations to "-FXT", disabling all message munging
> for everyone equally
>
> See corresponding discussion on infrastructure@
> for details of affected lists and more information
> on the choices available. Thx.
>