John R Levine writes:
> > Note that AOL and Yahoo! need to do this because they have
> > ambitions of being e-commerce platforms, and so their domain
> > names can be used to scam money out of people.
>
> We're deep enough into tin-foil hat territory here that we're
> done. Should you want
John R Levine writes:
> But you're nuts if you think that every Mailman list is going to
> kick off every Yahoo and AOL user,
You can stop the ad hominem innuendo right there (that's an RFC 2119
MUST NOT). There is plenty of documentary evidence on Mailman lists
that I'm fully aware that that
What'm trying to do is explain why Mailman should (IMHO) take a quite
different, much more conservative, stance toward implementing this,
and why I criticize DMARC.
I don't know anyone who thinks the way that Yahoo and AOL are using DMARC
is a good idea.
But you're nuts if you think that ever
John R Levine writes:
> My apologies. My imagination is sadly limited by 20 years of
> running mailing lists for real people, and extensive conversations
> with the people who designed and use DMARC.
Experience doesn't limit imagination, it's desperation to solve a
difficult problem in a hurr
On May 04, 2014, at 01:26 PM, John Levine wrote:
>I realize I'm a bit late to this party, but this is a technique that I
>don't think has been addressed here. On my lists I've fixed the DMARC
>bounces by rewriting From: lines of DMARC'ed domains like this on the
>way out:
>
> From: Marissa
>
>t
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> A critical incompatibility between the Mailman 2.1.18 final release and
> Python versions older than 2.6.5 or thereabouts affecting the DMARC Wrap
> Message action was discovered and fixed. This incompatibility also
> existed in the 2.1.16 and 2
A critical incompatibility between the Mailman 2.1.18 final release and
Python versions older than 2.6.5 or thereabouts affecting the DMARC Wrap
Message action was discovered and fixed. This incompatibility also
existed in the 2.1.16 and 2.1.17 releases.
Thus, I have released Mailman 2.1.18-1 with
> I wouldn't waste time worrying about whether various hacks might make
> it 0.0001% easier to phish people.
Will you please stop focusing on *your* logic, and start thinking
about what happens if people with different interpretations of the
facts take action on those interpretations?
My apolog
SM writes:
> Hi Stephen,
> At 23:28 05-05-2014, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >Don't you have that backwards? It's pointing out lack of a formal
> >hard requirement that is nit-picking. After all, Postel's Principle
> >isn't written in any IETF procedure manual. Would you call that one a
>
Hi Stephen,
At 23:28 05-05-2014, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Don't you have that backwards? It's pointing out lack of a formal
hard requirement that is nit-picking. After all, Postel's Principle
isn't written in any IETF procedure manual. Would you call that one a
"nit", too?
I labelled my pr
10 matches
Mail list logo
