On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Jim Popovitch jim...@gmail.com wrote:
Just a heads up to interested parties... Google seems to now be
bouncing where From: is another gmail account. But it seems to be
inconsistent. If you are reading this on a gmail account please let
me know.
-Jim P.
A
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Jim Popovitch jim...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Jim Popovitch jim...@gmail.com wrote:
Just a heads up to interested parties... Google seems to now be
bouncing where From: is another gmail account. But it seems to be
inconsistent. If
So I believe, if this list was not stripping the HTML part of the emails, as it
does not add a subject tag nor a footer, then DKIM would survive the list and
all would be fine…
why does this list break DKIM when forwarding?
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 10:01:38PM +, Franck Martin wrote:
So I believe, if this list was not stripping the HTML part of the emails, as
it does not add a subject tag nor a footer, then DKIM would survive the list
and all would be fine?
why does this list break DKIM when forwarding?
My
On 4/20/2014 18:08, Barney Wolff wrote:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 10:01:38PM +, Franck Martin wrote:
So I believe, if this list was not stripping the HTML part of the emails, as
it does not add a subject tag nor a footer, then DKIM would survive the list
and all would be fine?
why does
On Apr 20, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Barney Wolff bar...@databus.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 10:01:38PM +, Franck Martin wrote:
So I believe, if this list was not stripping the HTML part of the emails, as
it does not add a subject tag nor a footer, then DKIM would survive the list
and
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Franck Martin fmar...@linkedin.com wrote:
why does this list break DKIM when forwarding?
From the Gmail headers your email :
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
spf=neutral (google.com:
nanog-bounces+scott=example.com@nanog.orgdoes not designate
Sure as long as I make sure my post is plain text which you know is not anymore
a standard on many email clients.
So if this lists stop to strip the HTML mime part it will pass DMARC regardless
of the email client defaults.
Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question.
On Apr 20, 2014,
On 4/9/2014 8:00 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 12:27:55PM -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:
But it's the result of an informed
corporate choice rather than software or operations error.
Why do you think (it seems to me you've said it more than once) that
this was informed
On Apr 20, 2014, at 4:07 PM, Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Franck Martin fmar...@linkedin.com wrote:
why does this list break DKIM when forwarding?
From the Gmail headers your email :
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
spf=neutral
On 4/10/14 4:29 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
An aside:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 05:15:59PM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
Maybe this is a good thing - we can stop getting all the sorry I'm
out of the office emails when posting to a list.
I entirely support that goal, but my preferred solution is
So
Suppose I configure my email to send a Thanks, we have received your
email, we will reply shortly in office hours.. Whats the Holy Headers
so even poorly configured servers don't cause a AutoReply Storm?
Googling, I found Precedence, X-Auto-Response-Suppress,..? For
something like
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014, Tei wrote:
Suppose I configure my email to send a Thanks, we have received your
email, we will reply shortly in office hours.. Whats the Holy Headers
so even poorly configured servers don't cause a AutoReply Storm?
Googling, I found Precedence,
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 03:22:24PM -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote:
I suspect they looked at the amount of spam they could stop [...]
Which is, to a very good first approximation, zero.
Nearly all (at least 99% and likely quite a bit more) of the spam [as
observed by my numerous spamtraps] that
On 4/9/2014 9:21 PM, George Michaelson wrote:
Aside from a horrid config notation. the main problem for me has always
been getting sysadmins to include the changes which expose envelope-sender
and envelope-recipient to procmail. Thats not procmail, its the way
procmail is typically called.
at some point, Dave Crocker wrote:
If I point a gun at you, and pull the trigger, but maybe shouldn't have
done that, the gun is not broken.
It occurs to me that, if you point a gun at me, aim at me, pull the
trigger, and hit someone standing 10 feet to my left - the gun IS broken
(or at
All this talk about procmail leads me to ask:
- has anybody come up with a procmail recipe, or other mechanism to
validate DKIM-signed mail and apply an Original-Authentication-Results
header, at the MTA level?
- if so, does it work with Yahoo mail directed to mailing lists?
- if yes, can you
Tei wrote:
Your post advocates a
(*) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it
won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular
(*) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is
An aside:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 05:15:59PM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
Maybe this is a good thing - we can stop getting all the sorry I'm
out of the office emails when posting to a list.
I entirely support that goal, but my preferred solution is the complete
eradication of the software (a
I agree to a large extent with your comments/observations, but I'd
like to focus on one point in particular:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 11:00:57PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
So, I'm trying to imagine the presentation slide on which appears the
advice to implement the controversial adopted
On 4/9/2014 11:54 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
Basic functionality is seriously and utterly broken --- that DMARC
doesn't have a good answer for such situations, is a major indicator
of its immaturity, in the sense that it is Too specific a solution
and cannot apply to e-mail in general.
If it were
On 4/10/2014 5:05 AM, Tei wrote:
Your post advocates a
(*) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
Since the nanog list isn't devoted to anti-spam work, folk might not
know that you were calling upon the stellar web page developed by Cory
Doctorow:
On 4/10/2014 5:13 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
If I point a gun at you, and pull the trigger, but maybe shouldn't have
done that, the gun is not broken.
It occurs to me that, if you point a gun at me, aim at me, pull the
trigger, and hit someone standing 10 feet to my left - the gun IS broken
(or
On 04/09/2014 09:54 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
Basic functionality is seriously and utterly broken --- that DMARC doesn't
have a good answer for such situations, is a major indicator of its
immaturity, in the sense that it is Too specific a solution and cannot
apply to e-mail in general.
DMARC is
On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 07:56:16 -0700, Michael Thomas said:
but I can't see what the point is in defending the idiocy as being some
sort of sacred right.
I'm sure Randy Bush would defend his competitor's right to run their networks
that way. :)
pgpPc4rzVLYWF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 04/09/2014 06:04 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Especially after reading some of the discussions on the DMARC mailing
list where it's clear that issues of breaking mailing lists were
explicitly ignored and dismissed.
There's been 10 years of ostrichism about policy and mailing lists,
On 10 Apr 2014, at 9:49, Dave Crocker wrote:
Unfortunately, that has no relationship to do with the current
situation. Again: Yahoo was fully aware of the implications of its
choice.
I suspect they looked at the amount of spam they could stop, the number
of Yahoo email users, and the
Andrew Sullivan asulli...@dyn.com writes:
I think DMARC is mostly useful when used correctly. There is no BCP
yet...
There is, however, BCP167/RFC6377 covering DKIM and mailing lists.
Some relevant sections are 4.1 and 5.3:
4.1:
... site administrators wishing to
employ ADSP with a
On 4/10/2014 6:29 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 05:15:59PM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
Maybe this is a good thing - we can stop getting all the sorry I'm
out of the office emails when posting to a list.
I entirely support that goal, but my preferred solution is the
Am I interpreting this correctly -- that Yahoo's implementation of
DMARC is broken, such that anyone using a Yahoo address to participate
in a mailing list is dead in the water?
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg87153.html
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:13:47AM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
Am I interpreting this correctly -- that Yahoo's implementation of
DMARC is broken, such that anyone using a Yahoo address to participate
in a mailing list is dead in the water?
Yes. It seems that Yahoo wasn't content with just
On 04/09/14 07:13, Royce Williams wrote:
Am I interpreting this correctly -- that Yahoo's implementation of
DMARC is broken, such that anyone using a Yahoo address to participate
in a mailing list is dead in the water?
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg87153.html
On 4/9/2014 10:13 AM, Royce Williams wrote:
Am I interpreting this correctly -- that Yahoo's implementation of
DMARC is broken, such that anyone using a Yahoo address to participate
in a mailing list is dead in the water?
Their implementation is not 'broken'.
Rather, Yahoo has made a very
Confirmed across a variety of Mailman lists I administer.
Mailman can be patched to reject/discard posts from members with p=reject.
https://code.launchpad.net/~jimpop/mailman/dmarc-reject
I'm sort of glad that Yahoo did what they did, people are now seeing
the dark side of DMARC. WooHoo!!
In article 5345831b.4030...@dcrocker.net you write:
On 4/9/2014 10:13 AM, Royce Williams wrote:
Am I interpreting this correctly -- that Yahoo's implementation of
DMARC is broken, such that anyone using a Yahoo address to participate
in a mailing list is dead in the water?
Their
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 4:05 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
I'd say it's pretty badly broken if Yahoo intends for their web mail
to continue to be a general purpose mail system for consumers. If
they want to make it something else, that's certainly their right, but
it would have been
On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 17:15:59 -0400, William Herrin said:
Meh. This just means list software will have to rewrite the From
header to From: John Levine nanog@nanog.org and rely on the
Reply-To header for anybody who wants to send a message back to the
originator.
Maybe this is a good thing -
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 5:15 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 4:05 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
I'd say it's pretty badly broken if Yahoo intends for their web mail
to continue to be a general purpose mail system for consumers. If
they want to make it
On Wed, 9 Apr 2014, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 17:15:59 -0400, William Herrin said:
Meh. This just means list software will have to rewrite the From
header to From: John Levine nanog@nanog.org and rely on the
Reply-To header for anybody who wants to send a message back
On 4/9/2014 5:24 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 17:15:59 -0400, William Herrin said:
Meh. This just means list software will have to rewrite the From
header to From: John Levine nanog@nanog.org and rely on the
Reply-To header for anybody who wants to send a message
The most sane out-of-mind response should only be sent *if* the
out-of-mind person is named explicitly as a recipient in the RFC822
header. Anything To: somelist@somehost does not qualify :)
Funny story: When I was at IBM I filed that as a bug with Lotus
Notes. The Notes team rejected the
On 4/9/2014 3:05 PM, John Levine wrote:
In article 5345831b.4030...@dcrocker.net you write:
Their implementation is not 'broken'.
I'd say it's pretty badly broken if Yahoo intends for their web mail
to continue to be a general purpose mail system for consumers. If
they want to make it
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 05:49:27PM -0400, Jeff Kell wrote:
The most sane out-of-mind response should only be sent *if* the
out-of-mind person is named explicitly as a recipient in the RFC822
header. Anything To: somelist@somehost does not qualify :)
Jeff
and just how is an
On 4/9/2014 6:11 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 05:49:27PM -0400, Jeff Kell wrote:
The most sane out-of-mind response should only be sent *if* the
out-of-mind person is named explicitly as a recipient in the RFC822
header. Anything To: somelist@somehost does
The most sane out-of-mind response should only be sent *if* the
out-of-mind person is named explicitly as a recipient in the RFC822
To: header. Anything To: somelist@somehost does not qualify :)
This highly effective trick was in the procmail example vacation script in
1991, and doubtless
2: introduce an Original Authentication Results header to indicate
you have performed the authentication and you are validating it
This was someone's hack that doesn't work. The idea is that you make an
RFC5451 Authentication-Results header for the incoming message, change the
name to
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:27 PM, John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
The most sane out-of-mind response should only be sent *if* the
out-of-mind person is named explicitly as a recipient in the RFC822
To: header. Anything To: somelist@somehost does not qualify :)
This highly effective trick
procmail is a rewrite of MMDF mailfilter. badly.
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:27 PM, John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
The most sane out-of-mind response should only be sent *if* the
out-of-mind person is
This highly effective trick was in the procmail example vacation script in
1991, and doubtless goes back much farther than that. It's a little
dismaying to hear that there are still people writing autoresponders who
don't know about it.
what is procmail?
The scriptable mail delivery agent
On 4/9/2014 5:11 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 05:49:27PM -0400, Jeff Kell wrote:
The most sane out-of-mind response should only be sent *if* the
out-of-mind person is named explicitly as a recipient in the RFC822
header. Anything To: somelist@somehost does
On 4/9/2014 5:45 PM, George Michaelson wrote:
procmail is a rewrite of MMDF mailfilter. badly.
Thanks, but I believe it slightly preceded MMDF's equivalent facility.
On the average, Allman put comparable features into sendmail sooner than
I did.
Of course, my design's were sooo much
tomorrow
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1;
rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Yahoo DMARC breakage
And I'm nowhere mentioned. I only appear in the envelope RCPT TO:
RFC821 header, nowhere in the RFC822 header.
It's not rocket science if you have
:
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 18:22:51 -0500
From: Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net
Organization: Maybe tomorrow
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1;
rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Yahoo DMARC breakage
And I'm nowhere mentioned. I only appear
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:11 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
and just how is an algorithm supposed to detect that
jeff-k...@utc.edu is a single human and not a list?
If the autoresponder is sane, it looks for:
List-Id: North American Network Operators Group
: Yahoo DMARC breakage
It's also worth mentioning that if someone else's previous advice
is/was followed (about changing the MLM From: to a generic list
address) there would be no way to killfile someone, filter by name,
NOR any sense to long threaded discussions where MUAs do quoting and
others
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 8:12 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:11 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
and just how is an algorithm supposed to detect that
jeff-k...@utc.edu is a single human and not a list?
If the autoresponder is sane, it
Dave Crocker wrote:
On 4/9/2014 3:05 PM, John Levine wrote:
In article 5345831b.4030...@dcrocker.net you write:
Their implementation is not 'broken'.
I'd say it's pretty badly broken if Yahoo intends for their web mail
to continue to be a general purpose mail system for consumers. If
they
On 4/9/2014 7:25 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
Everything they are doing is legal.
Your (possibly entirely valid) assessment that their action is
ill-advised or unpleasant does not equal broken.
Well, sort of - given that DMARC is still an Internet draft, not even an
Dave Crocker wrote:
On 4/9/2014 7:25 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
Everything they are doing is legal.
Your (possibly entirely valid) assessment that their action is
ill-advised or unpleasant does not equal broken.
Well, sort of - given that DMARC is still an Internet draft,
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:11 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
and just how is an algorithm supposed to detect that
jeff-k...@utc.edu is a single human and not a list?
If the autoresponder is sane, it looks for:
List-Id: North American Network Operators Group
On 4/9/2014 5:45 PM, George Michaelson wrote:
procmail is a rewrite of MMDF mailfilter. badly.
Thanks, but I believe it slightly preceded MMDF's equivalent facility. On the
average, Allman put comparable features into sendmail sooner than I did.
Procmail's user interface, if you can call it
Aside from a horrid config notation. the main problem for me has always
been getting sysadmins to include the changes which expose envelope-sender
and envelope-recipient to procmail. Thats not procmail, its the way
procmail is typically called. Without it, some stuff simply cannot be done
because
Hi Dave,
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 12:27:55PM -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:
But it's the result of an informed
corporate choice rather than software or operations error.
Why do you think (it seems to me you've said it more than once) that
this was informed choice? If I go to http://dmarc.org/,
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Miles Fidelman
mfidel...@meetinghouse.netwrote:
On 4/9/2014 7:25 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Yahoo! is choosing to apply the technology for usage scenarios that have
long been known to be problematic. Again, they've made an
In fact... it is too generous to say
64 matches
Mail list logo
