On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Do you have any examples of lists where it *does* work? LIke, could it be
> because our list-unsubscribe links are mailto: links and not http(s) links
> for example?
>From what I read they prefer mailto links. But apparently they only
dis
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
> wrote:
> >
> > well not changing the subject seems like something we could do without
> > fuss - not changing the body would likely mean we would (again) get a
> > number of people askin
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
wrote:
>
> well not changing the subject seems like something we could do without
> fuss - not changing the body would likely mean we would (again) get a
> number of people asking "how do I unsubscribe", but maybe we will have
> to live with th
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > I don't think that's going to be anything but unwelcome noise. What
> > would they do if they became aware of the issue? They could switch
> > providers, but that only works for
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> I don't think that's going to be anything but unwelcome noise. What
> would they do if they became aware of the issue? They could switch
> providers, but that only works for so long. As soon as Gmail switches
> to p=reject, we've lost.
On 11/26/2015 09:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner writes:
>> that seems entirely doable with our current infrastructure (and even
>> with minimal-to-no hackery on mj2) - but it still carries the "changes
>> From:" issue :/
>
> Yeah. What do you think of the other approach of trying
Greg Stark wrote:
> Hm, I see it as a reason why signing Sender is reasonable. If it were
> a functional header then there might be a reason it would have to be
> changed. But if it's purely informational and the receiving MUA is
> going to display to the user (which is a bad idea imho but Gmail a
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 11:13 PM, José Luis Tallón
wrote:
> From DMARC.org's Wiki:
> <<< 2 Add an "Original Authentication Results" header to indicate you have
> performed the authentication and you are validating it
> 3 Take ownership of the email, by removing the DKIM signature and putting
> you
On 11/26/2015 09:12 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
But my point was that while the RFC says what to put there there's
absolutely no reference anywhere for when the information should cause
any MUA or MTA to behave differently.
Agreed. To my mind that's
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, but SPF is also used as part of DMARC, which means that merely
> forwarding somebody's email out of our listserv is probably going to look
> like spam, even if we didn't change anything at all about the message
> contents. Also, some source
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > But my point was that while the RFC says what to put there there's
> > absolutely no reference anywhere for when the information should cause
> > any MUA or MTA to behave differently.
>
> Agreed. To my mind that's a reason why Sender should not
Stefan Kaltenbrunner writes:
> that seems entirely doable with our current infrastructure (and even
> with minimal-to-no hackery on mj2) - but it still carries the "changes
> From:" issue :/
Yeah. What do you think of the other approach of trying to preserve
validity of the incoming DKIM-Signatu
On 11/24/2015 11:03 PM, José Luis Tallón wrote:
> On 11/24/2015 07:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> [snip]
>> The clearly critical thing, though, is that when forwarding a message
>> from
>> a person at a DMARC-using domain, we would have to replace the From: line
>> with something @postgresql.org. This
Greg Stark writes:
> It's a reasonable idea for mailing list software to put the list in
> Sender given that it's the "agent responsible for the actual
> transmission of the message" as RFC2822 specifies.
Right.
> But my point was that while the RFC says what to put there there's
> absolutely no
It's a reasonable idea for mailing list software to put the list in
Sender given that it's the "agent responsible for the actual
transmission of the message" as RFC2822 specifies. But you could just
as easily argue that the list is just relaying the message and the
agent actually transmitting the m
Greg Stark writes:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think that would put us in a situation where DKIM signatures would still
>> pass, at least unless the source insisted on signing Sender: too.
> Incidentally I'm confused about your concern about Sender. Sender has
> almos
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I think that would put us in a situation where DKIM signatures would still
> pass, at least unless the source insisted on signing Sender: too.
Incidentally I'm confused about your concern about Sender. Sender has
almost no significance for emai
Greg Stark writes:
> It'll still mess up everyone's contact book which will fill up with
> these fake email addresses. And the Reply-To will mean private
> responses will go to the list.
Yeah, it's not pretty. But I'm not sure we're gonna have much choice
if Gmail changes their policy.
> Fwiw I
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:03 PM, José Luis Tallón
wrote:
>> From: Persons Real Name
>> Reply-To: ...
>> so that at least the person's name would still be readable in MUA
>> displays.
>
> Yup
It'll still mess up everyone's contact book which will fill up with
these fake email add
On 11/24/2015 07:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
[snip]
The clearly critical thing, though, is that when forwarding a message from
a person at a DMARC-using domain, we would have to replace the From: line
with something @postgresql.org. This is what gets it out from under the
original domain's DMARC poli
On 11/24/2015 07:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> "Rudolph T. Maceyko" writes:
>>> The basic changes since Yahoo implemented their p=reject DMARC policy
>>> last year (and others followed) were:
>>> * make NO CHANGES to the body of the message--no headers, footers, etc.
>>> * make NO CHANGES
Larry Rosenman writes:
> On 2015-11-24 13:43, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Of course, removing all the "List-" headers *and* our custom footers is
>> a huge step backwards in terms of mailing list functionality :-( Also,
>> removing the [HACKERS] etc tags will annoy some people, for sure.
> You don'
Larry Rosenman writes:
> On 2015-11-24 13:11, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Kevin Grittner writes:
>>> If this were done, would the other steps (not changing the subject
>>> or body of the email) be necessary?
>>
>> See my followup: I think it's probably true that we could skip those
>> changes.
> Any Hea
On 2015-11-24 13:43, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Larry Rosenman wrote:
On 2015-11-24 13:11, Tom Lane wrote:
>Kevin Grittner writes:
>>On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
change the From header (and add a Reply-To, so replies still work).
>
>>If this were done, would the other steps
Larry Rosenman wrote:
> On 2015-11-24 13:11, Tom Lane wrote:
> >Kevin Grittner writes:
> >>On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> change the From header (and add a Reply-To, so replies still work).
> >
> >>If this were done, would the other steps (not changing the subject
> >>or
On 2015-11-24 13:11, Tom Lane wrote:
Kevin Grittner writes:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
change the From header (and add a Reply-To, so replies still work).
If this were done, would the other steps (not changing the subject
or body of the email) be necessary?
See my
Kevin Grittner writes:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> change the From header (and add a Reply-To, so replies still work).
> If this were done, would the other steps (not changing the subject
> or body of the email) be necessary?
See my followup: I think it's probably tr
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Forwarded with Rudy's permission ...
> From:"Rudolph T. Maceyko"
> * when mail comes to the list from a domain that uses a p=reject DMARC
> policy, CHANGE THE FROM HEADER so that it comes from the list.
> Otherwise, when that message would
I wrote:
> "Rudolph T. Maceyko" writes:
>> The basic changes since Yahoo implemented their p=reject DMARC policy
>> last year (and others followed) were:
>> * make NO CHANGES to the body of the message--no headers, footers, etc.
>> * make NO CHANGES to the subject header of the message--no more
>
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If anyone thinks we might be motivated to become DMARC compliant,
>> I can inquire for more details. But I won't bother unless there's
>> real interest.
> I'd definitely be interested at least in what they're doing. W
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If anyone thinks we might be motivated to become DMARC compliant,
>> I can inquire for more details. But I won't bother unless there's
>> real interest.
> I'd definitely be interested at least in what they're doing. W
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> That's a direct effect of the dmarc policy change. Yahoo no longer
> supports
> >> their customers using mailing lists. They changed their policies for
> such
> >> emails to hard reject, whi
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> That's a direct effect of the dmarc policy change. Yahoo no longer supports
>> their customers using mailing lists. They changed their policies for such
>> emails to hard reject, which makes Gmail (and presumably others) stick them
>> in spam.. It
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> > That's a direct effect of the dmarc policy change. Yahoo no longer
> supports
> > their customers using mailing lists. They changed their policies for such
> > emails to hard reject, which makes Gmail (and pres
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> That's a direct effect of the dmarc policy change. Yahoo no longer supports
> their customers using mailing lists. They changed their policies for such
> emails to hard reject, which makes Gmail (and presumably others) stick them
> in spam.. It would happen to all the emai
On Nov 24, 2015 01:05, "Michael Paquier" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:41 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > Yahoo recently changed their DMARC policy, and after some
> > investigation and a support case with Yahoo, it is now clear that
> > their email systems can no longer be used with the pos
Le 24 nov. 2015 01:05, "Michael Paquier" a
écrit :
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:41 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > Yahoo recently changed their DMARC policy, and after some
> > investigation and a support case with Yahoo, it is now clear that
> > their email systems can no longer be used with the
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:41 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Yahoo recently changed their DMARC policy, and after some
> investigation and a support case with Yahoo, it is now clear that
> their email systems can no longer be used with the postgresql.org
> lists. I've migrated from kgri...@ymail.com
Yahoo recently changed their DMARC policy, and after some
investigation and a support case with Yahoo, it is now clear that
their email systems can no longer be used with the postgresql.org
lists. I've migrated from kgri...@ymail.com to kgri...@gmail.com.
In the process I noticed that some people
39 matches
Mail list logo
