On 11/17/22 9:00 AM, Bill Cole wrote:
Easier said than done.
It's actually quite easy to do. But most people don't want to do what I
think should be done.
IMHO, the email list itself is a 1st class / proper entity that you are
emailing or reading email from. -- I'm not emailing Bill or G
On 2022-11-16 at 06:46:57 UTC-0500 (Wed, 16 Nov 2022 06:46:57 -0500)
Greg Troxel
is rumored to have said:
> Not really this topic, but I think mailing lists really need to be set
> up to not break DKIM.
Easier said than done.
I'm on an absurd number of mailing lists, and MOST are not entirely D
On 2022-11-15 at 15:16:49 UTC-0500 (Tue, 15 Nov 2022 20:16:49 +)
Marc
is rumored to have said:
>> You might want to point out to them that rewrite_header breaks any DKIM
>> signature on mail,
>
> Hmmm, good point, not really thought about this even. Are email clients
> complaining about this
On 2022-11-15 at 21:45:52 UTC-0500 (Tue, 15 Nov 2022 18:45:52 -0800)
Loren Wilton
is rumored to have said:
>> So the alternative is adding a header and move it to the spam folder
>> automatically on the basis of the header?
>>
>> Currently I just want to 'warn' users that the message is possible
On 2022-11-16 at 08:01:12 UTC-0500 (Wed, 16 Nov 2022 06:01:12 -0700)
Grant Taylor via users
is rumored to have said:
> Or said another way, DKIM is only supposed to be a /positive/ /assertion/ if
> / when a DKIM signature validation passes. DKIM is supposed to not be
> negative.
That's ABSOLUT
On 11/16/22 4:46 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
Can you expand on that?
I'll try.
My understanding is that few MUAs test DKIM signatures /client/ /side/.
-- The only exception that I'm aware of is that there was a Thunderbird
add-on that would test DKIM signatures /client/ /side/. Almost all DKIM
Greg Troxel writes:
> I did just get a bounce message in reply to a message I sent here,
> complaining that my message failed DKIM (maybe the list munged it) and
> SPF (ok; the list is not in general authorized to send mail from my
> domain) and therefore was being rejected (but I do not current
"Grant Taylor via users" writes:
> On 11/15/22 1:16 PM, Marc wrote:
>> Hmmm, good point, not really thought about this even. Are email
>> clients complaining about this?
>
> Few email clients are testing DKIM. Some servers are testing
> DKIM. Some systems are mis-treating DKIM failure as someth
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 9:46 PM Loren Wilton wrote:
>
> If SA sees the message and classifies it as spam, it normally adds (from
> an
> example)
> X-Spam-Flag: YES
> X-Spam-Level:
> X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=8.2 required=5.0
> tests=BAYES_50=0.8,DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,
>
> It should be trivial
So the alternative is adding a header and move it to the spam folder
automatically on the basis of the header?
Currently I just want to 'warn' users that the message is possible spam,
they can decide to move such emails automatically to a spam folder by
enabling a sieve rule.
What would be an
On 11/15/22 1:16 PM, Marc wrote:
Hmmm, good point, not really thought about this even. Are email
clients complaining about this?
Few email clients are testing DKIM. Some servers are testing DKIM.
Some systems are mis-treating DKIM failure as something more sever than
the specification allows
> You might want to point out to them that rewrite_header breaks any DKIM
> signature on mail,
Hmmm, good point, not really thought about this even. Are email clients
complaining about this?
> in addition to cluttering the Subject if
> misclassified mail is part of a conversation.
So the alte
On 2022-11-15 at 05:04:08 UTC-0500 (Tue, 15 Nov 2022 10:04:08 +)
Marc
is rumored to have said:
> I am having repeated occurances of ***SPAM*** in the subject, maybe it is
> good to stop adding ***SPAM*** if there are already 10 in the subject?
That's an entirely local choice, controlled by
Apache SpamAssassin it's both an API and a program. In my installation, I
do not use it to do any subject modifications and I use a milter called
mime defang to do that using my own logic.
You can also configure spam d/Spam seed not to modify the subject.
If you would like similar headings remove
>
> When a *user* replies it's not at the beginning
> it's "Re: **spam**"
:) Indeed, and in other languages it is even different, but I think developers
get the point ;)
> >> spamassassin add multiple times '**spam**' to the subject.
> >>
> >> your spamassassin only adds it one time
> >
> > Yes I know, and lazy users do not remove it in replies, that is how
> you get multiple occurances
>
> than it's "Subject: **spam** Re: **spam**" and the only relevant
> informa
> >>
> >> multiple signs of spam leading to marking a message as spam
> >
> > This is not relevant for the discussion on whether or not to have
> spamassassin add multiple times '**spam**' to the subject.
>
> your spamassassin only adds it one time
Yes I know, and lazy users do not remove it in r
>
> Am 15.11.22 um 11:48 schrieb Marc:
> >>
> >> and i told you that it's useful when a message already passed
> multiple
> >> hops which flagged it as spam to outright reject it
> >>
> >> /^Subject: .*\*\*\*\*\*spam\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*spam\*\*\*\*\*/
> REJECT
> >> Administrative Prohibition (Sub
>
> and i told you that it's useful when a message already passed multiple
> hops which flagged it as spam to outright reject it
>
> /^Subject: .*\*\*\*\*\*spam\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*spam\*\*\*\*\*/ REJECT
> Administrative Prohibition (Subject)
A message is either spam or not, and is marked as spa
> >
> > I am having repeated occurances of ***SPAM*** in the subject, maybe it
> is good to stop adding ***SPAM*** if there are already 10 in the
> subject?
>
> ask the sending admin why in the world he still continues to blow out
> that crap instead trash it
>
> if there are already two in the s
20 matches
Mail list logo
