Barry,
Nice document. I still feel like I do not know enough about the
ramifications of stripping or not stripping the DKIM signature to be
sure of the right default, and I still think we could use some more
information and understanding of all of the factors. However, Your
proposed default of n
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> What should MM2.1 do now? Here's a proposal for 2.1.10: Add an
> mm_cfg.py variable that controls whether DKIM headers are stripped or
> not. I think Mark suggested that this should be a site-wide
> variable, and I tend to agree. The reasoning being that all the
> o
With DKIM, according to my understanding, you are supposed to treat a
"bad" sig the same way you'd treat "no" sig. So it would neither help
nor hurt to have a bad signature; it would be like having none (or a
missing sig).
Personally, I think DKIM would be a whole lot more effective and
powerful
Michael Thomas wrote:
> But let's turn this around: why do you think practice is helpful? I really
> don't understand the motivation at all. Destroying information -- especially
> when you're charged with forensic exercises like spam filters are -- is
> *rarely* the right thing to do. It seems to m
Joe Peterson wrote:
> I really do not think that a From address should be changed. This is
> where "Sender" comes in (and Sender is more "behind the scenes" and less
> important to the end user). So what Mailman does
I really do not think that a From address should be changed. This is
where "Sender" comes in (and Sender is more "behind the scenes" and less
important to the end user). So what Mailman does not, I believe, is
correct: keep From set to the person who sent the email and set Sender
to reflect that
Yep, for a time I was doing some testing of DKIM on my server (using the
sendmail milter). )I was using sendmail at the time, and I have since
switched to Postfix.) I did stop using DKIM after a while, and one
reason was the mailing list stumbling block.
Since passing messages through Mailman ap
Hi Michael,
Thanks for writing about this. I suspect many are under the impression
that passing messages through mail lists tended to break DomainKeys and
DKIM (I know I was one, at least back when I was experimenting a lot
with it). In fact, it always seemed to break on my Mailman lists,
leavin
I could probably just informally replace the needed files if they can
"plug in" to 2.1.9, if that's easier than creating a patch. I won't
have time until next week to try it out, but I'd be glad to if it helps!
-Thanks, Joe
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Dec 5, 20
Thanks guys - I have never messed with LMTP. It looks like it indeed is
appropriate for local delivery (I am starting to read up on it now).
I'll have to do some more Postfix experimenting!
I do not have Mailman 2.2 installed on my mail server (I am at 2.1.9),
so I cannot try it out immediately,
I wanted to post this to the developer list and see if there have been
any previous thoughts on my situation and also if there are related
features being developed for 3.0 (if so, there's probably no point in
patching 2.x).
Anyway, my postfix configuration, although probably not rare, seems to
be
Yep, sendmail. I'm curous, though: how does Exim know that the mail it
is about to deliver is going to Mailman? Does it key off of the fact
that it's about to deliver to the mailman program? Well, in any case,
if it's done in Cleanse.py in Mailman, the mailer doesn't have to be
tweaked, and ther
Ian Eiloart wrote:
> No, the MTA should check the keys. That is; if you ever want to reject mail
> on the basis of them. Mailman can't reject mail without generating
> collateral SPAM. What would be nice would be a way that Mailman *could*
> refuse to accept mail from the MTA.
Yes, the MTA does
rsion, as I was not sure if this applied to 2.1 or 2.2 alpha.
-Thanks, Joe
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 15:03, Joe Peterson wrote:
>
>
>>Anyway, since I run a Mailman system too, I figured this might be a
>>problem. Indeed it is, since the header line
I've recently been testing DomainKeys
(http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys) and DKIM (which is supposedly a
merging of DomainKeys with Cisco's scheme. I am using dk-milter and
dkim-milter with sendmail. What this does is add two header lines to
outgoing email that allow the receiver to determine
15 matches
Mail list logo
