On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 09:01:11 PM Craig Sanders via luv-main wrote: > > OK, please go tell Yahoo etc that they are doing it wrong. Let's > > leave the list server in it's current configuration until you convince > > Yahoo and Gmail of the error of their ways. > > if you intend to do nothing, then just say so - don't make up some > bullshit impossible goal that "might" get you to unbreak the list.
I have been very clear from the start that I intend to have the lists work reliably for delivering mail from all users (including Yahoo) and too all users (including Yahoo and Gmail). I have no plans to change that. I am entirely serious that if DMARC was to go away I would remove the DMARC specific setting. > > Actually the Gmail users didn't do anything, they just signed up for > > a mail service knowing nothing about DKIM or the Gmail actions that > > would happen when they received DKIM signed mail via a list. > > it's really difficult to have much sympathy for the technical problems > experienced by people who chose to use a spyware service run by a giant > corporation. They CHOSE to have no control over their mail, they get to > just suck it up and accept whatever problems that causes. They don't > get to assume that their abdication of responsibility for their own > email automatically entitle them to cause problems for others. So this is really a debate about who's the most elite under the guise of discussing list headers? > > > the mailman devs have obviously got it wrong. even they admit that > > > their implementation is buggy and broken. > > > > What is buggy is the fact that they can't preserve headers and body > > encoding. > > there's also the fact that mailman strips attachments and makes other > changes to the message body which is going to invalidate any signing of > the original msg. Yes. But I'm not aware of other list software that does what we want and solves these problems. > Look, the major problem with DMARC is that it uses the From: header. > > If it used the Sender: header instead (or used it IF it exists in > the headers), then mailman could do the right thing by stripping > attachments, changing the encoding, or whatever and declare that the > list was the Sender: and DKIM sign it. Well that wasn't what DMARC was designed to do. > > It's OK to wish that Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail, Facebook, and other big > > companies would do things differently. But your wishes aren't going > > to change anything. Let's stick to discussing the reality of how to > > deal with mail to/from such services. > > i didn't wish they did things differently, at least that's not the > argument i'm making here. my attitude is that their unreasonable demands > about changing the nature of email and mailing lists should be ignored, > not surrendered/pandered to. We have to either make the list work with mail to/from such services or exclude them from the lists. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/ _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
