On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:31:47PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 08:36:30 AM Craig Sanders via luv-main wrote: > Why are we having an argument about comments then? If they are just > comments then it shouldn't be a big deal.
because munging them screws up an MUAs ability to reply correctly. because overwriting the Reply-To: header can make it impossible to reply to the original sender. because what mailman is doing with DMARC is broken. > Stupidity is a problem. But what we want to do here is to make it possible > for people who aren't particularly stupid to work this out without much > effort. they can. It's not hard: 1. Don't click on links in email. 2. Don't trust that the message actually came from whoever it claims to have come from unless it's signed and/or encrypted with a key you (your system) knows, and even then be wary (keys can't protect you when the sender is coerced to give up their private key) that's it. the rest is implementation details of those two things. > They could have designed encryption and signing features from the start and > methods for recognising new senders. those things are MUA functions (i.e. message payload), not MTA - i.e. irrelevant to the SMTP protocol. > > > Apart from the ones who receive mail viw Gmail, the ones who > > > complained about my mail going to their spam folders which started me > > > working on this. > > > > if mailman is breaking DKIM-signed message then that needs to be fixed. > > mangling headers is a crappy workaround hack, not a fix. > > Fine, Tell us how to fix it without mangling headers. why me? i'm not the one who wants to change anything. you've changed things and caused breakage. a better idea would be for you to fix it instead of deciding that mangling headers is a reasonable thing to do. i.e. you want it, you fix it. also: a) i'm not a python programmer b) i disagree with the concept of DMARC, so i have no desire to implement it or fix a particularly broken implementation of it. > > as i said, solve the right (actual!) problem. if mailman's handling of > > DKIM-signed messages is broken then THAT is the problem that needs to be > > fixed. > > OK. Let's fix that. I don't have the time or skill to fix Mailman code, > could > you please do it for me? translation: i've enabled a broken feature and rather than revert that change, i'll badger someone else to fix the problem for me. you enabled it, it's up to you to either fix it or disable it again. craig -- craig sanders <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
