Hi all,
I've seen these Subject: lines being changed using utf-8 quoted-printable
encoding for every non-alnum character. The message has: X-Mailman-Version:
3.3.9rc4.
Of course, doing so breaks DKIM signatures, and I'm trying to understand in
what cases it is advisable to revert the encodi
iscussions. Meanwhile let me thank you for your essential
support.
Best
Ale
--
[*] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vesely-dmarc-mlm-transform/
___
Mailman-Developers mailing list -- mailman-developers@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email
On Tue 13/Sep/2022 10:14:12 +0200 Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Alessandro Vesely writes:
Maintaining synchronization of configurations of two lists will be tedious
for the admin, or involve relatively complicated coding if we arrange to
automatically mirror configuration changes.
Couldn&#
Hi Steve,
thanks for your precious insights.
Some comments inline and a new version:
On Sat 10/Sep/2022 10:41:21 +0200 Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Alessandro Vesely writes:
3. The ARC method
This twin-list proposal doesn't depend specifically on ARC.
Right.
For each list
On Tue 06/Sep/2022 15:28:10 +0200 Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
At worst, one could set up two lists, fed by the same stream, one
with munging enabled and the other not, letting users subscribe to
the one they prefer.
To be honest, while I'm at best 50% willing to implement the user
option, I co
On Tue 06/Sep/2022 06:41:36 +0200 Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Alessandro Vesely writes:
On Sun 04/Sep/2022 13:38:39 +0200 Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
I asked bind-users if anyone verifying ARC saw any difference after
trusting isc.org. Besides adding ARC sets, bind-users do From: munging
Hi Steve!
On Sun 04/Sep/2022 13:38:39 +0200 Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Alessandro Vesely writes:
There is a thread about ARC sealing in bind-users[*].
Not sure what you mean by "sealing". Do you mean they're not
implementing the rest of the protocol?
They add a c
Hi,
There is a thread about ARC sealing in bind-users[*]. They're applying ARC
signatures, although they run Mailman 2. The last message hypothesizes a user
option like so:
*From munging*:
Set this option to /Disabled/ to receive messages with the original From:
line intact. Keep
Hi,
Douglas Foster posted this draft to the IETF.
For discussion, see:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Fp1nnmBc242kxvxM7seVwoQ6ccU
Best
Ale
-- Forwarded message -
From:
Date: Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 8:14 PM
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-fosterd-dmarc-com
] I try and document that original signature validation here:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vesely-dmarc-mlm-transform
___
Mailman-Developers mailing list -- mailman-developers@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-de
Hi,
my footer removal software fails on IETF's "last-call" mailing list because it
looks for a line of underscores, whereas that list uses "-- ". That sequence
is "the separator line between the body and the signature of a message",
according to RFC 3676. However, I had never seen it in mail
Trolls can wreak havoc by subscribing to one or more high volume mailing lists
on behalf of a target one. For example, someone could subscribe this list to
the Linux kernel mailing list. Everybody would see the confirmation message,
but by the time someone realizes the need to unsubscribe, the
Hi all,
I've installed my reverting DKIM verifier. Today it failed on a specific
message which I also received directly. The reason it failed is the Subject:
field was rewritten like so:
ORIGINAL:
Subject: RE: [dmarc-ietf] A policy for direct mail flows only, was ARC
questions
REWRITTEN:
On Mon 28/Sep/2020 10:23:03 +0200 Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> Does this happen outside of DMARC mitigation? Can you show examples?
>
>
> I checked a few messages and couldn't find a switched To:. Switched Cc:
> seems
> to happen when one of the recipients is the
Hi Steve,
your observations put me on the right track. Thank you so much!
Long post below:
On Thu 24/Sep/2020 12:31:29 +0200 Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Alessandro Vesely writes:
First, what Mailman are you talking about? Only Mailman 3 is likely to get
these improvements, as Mailman 2 is
Hi all,
there's been quite some discussion about signature breaking in indirect mail
flows. Rewriting the From: header field seems to be the most popular
workaround. Yet, it is possible to undo the transformation that Mailman put in
place, thereby validating the original DKIM signature. I h
On Tue 15/Sep/2020 13:58:24 +0200 Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
ves...@tana.it writes:
Someone started talking about the risk of having their names and
email addresses archived in a publicly accessible mailing list. So
I thought I'd ask. In short, the proposal provided for completely
removing su
Someone started talking about the risk of having their names and email
addresses archived in a publicly accessible mailing list. So I thought I'd
ask. In short, the proposal provided for completely removing such data, to
protect privacy. See here for more:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/ms
On Thu 02/Nov/2017 03:31:46 +0100 Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Alessandro Vesely writes:
>
>> * The specs say that "DMARC should be amended to use [a method
>> better than PSL] as soon as it is generally available" [1]. I
>> believe that sentence refers t
Hi all,
I noticed (from a DMARC mitigation utility that Lindsay extracted) that Mailman
features its own approach to using the PSL. Of course, development must go on,
and sometimes it is a waste of time trying to make a super-duper scaffolding
for a job that can be carried out complying to the KIS
On Sun 15/Oct/2017 19:24:16 +0200 Mark Sapiro wrote:
>> Replacement of the From header is just a matter of reading the email
>> headers into an array, making modifications if necessary and pushing
>> the result, followed by the message body, out to Courier's sendmail
>> clone. Basically:
>>
>> if f
On Sun 06/Nov/2016 09:17:53 +0100 Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Alessandro Vesely writes:
The idea is to add a footer only in case it is not present,
Aside from the technical difficulties that Mark describes, this
suffers from a really big defect: for this to be actually useful,
you'd need
On Sat 05/Nov/2016 19:51:13 +0100 Mark Sapiro wrote:
On 11/05/2016 04:11 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
The idea is to add a footer only in case it is not present, similar to
what is done with subject_prefix. By properly setting both of them, a
sender can submit what can be called a camera
Dear all,
I'd like to probe the feasibility of this option.
The idea is to add a footer only in case it is not present, similar to what is
done with subject_prefix. By properly setting both of them, a sender can
submit what can be called a camera-ready post. Since no change applies, no
DKIM
24 matches
Mail list logo
