[dev] DMARC munging active here

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID>]

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.

Re: [lucy-dev] Re: [dev] DMARC munging active here

[Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>]

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Moritz Lenz <mo...@faui2k3.org> wrote:
> On 03.06.2014 03:31, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>> 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?
>
> -1
>
> The tags give some context where a mail fits in, which is very handy
> when email filtering doesn't work, for example.

Heh.  I was the one that pushed for those tags when the lists were set up,
against Joe's recommendations and counter to Apache tradition.  FWIW,
filtering on the `List-Id:` header is easier in Gmail than it used to be when
my habits were formed long ago using more primitive software, and I suspect
that other modern clients are similarly friendly -- which is why I've changed
my mind.

I don't feel that strongly one way or the other at least about dev@lucy,
users@lucy, and issues@lucy.  However, the length of the prefixing in subject
lines for commits@lucy is bothersome, and I'm doubt I'm alone in that thought.

So here's my revised proposal for filing a ticket with Infra:

*   Restore the old subject munging behavior for dev@lucy, users@lucy, and
    issues@lucy.
*   Remove subject munging from commits@lucy.

Marvin Humphrey

[lucy-dev] Re: [dev] DMARC munging active here

[Moritz Lenz <mo...@faui2k3.org>]

On 03.06.2014 03:31, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> 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?

-1

The tags give some context where a mail fits in, which is very handy
when email filtering doesn't work, for example.

(Seeing the [dev] tag I thought this was about the RIPE's database
development list, which unfortunately uses that same tag ...)

Cheers,
Moritz

Re: [lucy-dev] Re: [dev] DMARC munging active here

[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

[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

[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

[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
>
>

[lucy-dev] Re: [dev] DMARC munging active here

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID>]

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: [dev] DMARC munging active here

[Nathan Kurz <na...@verse.com>]

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: [dev] DMARC munging active here

[Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>]

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