Quoting Hendrik Boom (hend...@topoi.pooq.com):
> I *hate* the way that the Google Groups mailing lists refuse to
> include the mailing-list headers so you cannot just
> reply-to-list.
*glyph of surprise*
Are you sure? I just checked a recent example, and List-Post is there
and completely corr
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 10:17:41PM +, Simon Hobson wrote:
>
> Nice thought, but do you really think that the likes of Google give a sh*t
> about some little mailing list somewhere, and which should be using Google's
> services anyway - how dare they use their own solution !
> The reality is
Quoting Miles Fidelman (mfidel...@meetinghouse.net):
> Ahh... missed that. Didn't really notice anything until this huge
> string of emails. Sigh...
Eh, no worries. I half-realised that's what probably happened.
[publishing SPF & DMARC/DKIM records in DNS for a mailing list host:]
> True, bu
On 12/27/18 11:07 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Miles Fidelman (mfidel...@meetinghouse.net):
Speaking as someone who hosts a couple of dozen email lists, I
really don't understand what the fuss is about here.
The fuss involved people having paid no attention to the announcement of
Dng's DMARC-
Quoting Simon Hobson (li...@thehobsons.co.uk):
> Perhaps I'm missing something, but doesn't SRS provide a gaping wide
> chasm for spammers to pile through ?
I would call _gaping_ chasm an exaggeration -- but it is certainly
abusable (to the extent cross-domain aliases become known or
discoverable
Rick Moen wrote:
> Back in the day, I gave out /etc/aliases entries to friends that
> leveraged the 'mafia' theme of my linuxmafia.com domain,
In our case it was simple alias entries ina database queried by Postfix - but
same effect and same problem.
> SRS (sender rewriting scheme) was SPF cr
Quoting Simon Hobson (li...@thehobsons.co.uk):
> Correction noted.
I truly appreciate your hearing it in the spirit intended. Thank you,
Simon. (We'll want to wind this up soon, as it has little to do with
Devuan, and discussion has veered away from Dng's adoption of Mailman
DMARC-mitigation mu
Rick Moen wrote:
> Simon, I appreciate your pitching in to attempt to answer this question.
> A few necessary corrections, though:
Correction noted. However, in my defence my issues (which I no longer have to
deal with) were with mail forwarding in servers rather than mailing lists (IIRC
our m
Quoting Miles Fidelman (mfidel...@meetinghouse.net):
> Speaking as someone who hosts a couple of dozen email lists, I
> really don't understand what the fuss is about here.
The fuss involved people having paid no attention to the announcement of
Dng's DMARC-mitigation munging starting on December
Quoting info at smallinnovations dot nl (i...@smallinnovations.nl):
> So far i have just installed DMARC one time but if i remember it
> correctly either SPF or DKIM had to be correct to accept the e-mail or
> not. To quote my source "A message will fail DMARC if the message fails
> both (1) SPF o
On Thursday 27 December 2018 05:06:04 am Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Speaking as someone who hosts a couple of dozen email lists, I really
> don't understand what the fuss is about here.
>
> DMARC breaks mailing lists - it's that simple. It breaks pretty much
> anything that forwards mail. (FYI: Ear
Speaking as someone who hosts a couple of dozen email lists, I really
don't understand what the fuss is about here.
DMARC breaks mailing lists - it's that simple. It breaks pretty much
anything that forwards mail. (FYI: Early on, it broke the IETF's
lists. Rather annoying, that.)
If one
On 27-12-18 03:20, Rick Moen wrote:
>
> {sigh} Nobody listens.
>
> There is nothing needing a 'fix' (unless you wish to argue with
> operators of domains publishing aggressive DMARC policies (p=reject or
> p=quarantine) and convince them that such is an unwise policy). In a
> world where DMARC is
13 matches
Mail list logo
