[Mailman-Users] Re: Excessive or fatal bounces issue
Florin Pasăre writes: > I would like to ask you where the system What do you mean by "the system"? Mailman? The mail servers (these are the programs that exchange mail between hosts on the Internet)? Your mail client (the program you use to read and send mail)? "Something" between the author's fingers and your eyes? > gets the names you see in the "sent by" field, What "sent by" field? Do you mean something you see in your mail client? Maybe the From field? (There is no standard "sent by" field for email,) > because sometimes the name doesn't make it clear who is sending the > email and we would like to know if it is something we can control > or change. The mail standard RFC 5322 specifies a "From" field which contains the address of the author and optionally a display name for them. This is set by the author's mail client, and according to the standard should not be changed by anyone else. However, (1) mail clients such as Outlook and Apple Mail frequently change, interpret, or add random stuff to the From field when they display the author's identity, and (2) there is an anti-phishing protocol called DMARC according to which a sending system can request rejection of mail claiming to be from that system unless a valid digital signature is present. Since some things that a mailing list does (like adding unsubscription information as legally required in many places) break the signature, Mailman has an option to change the From field from "Some User " to "Some User via This List ". This DMARC mitigation is only used if the list owner explicitly configures it. > Another question is where the system gets the name of the person who > appears in the "reply to" field. According to RFC 5322, that field also should only be set by the author of the original message. However, nonconforming behavior is common, and under certain circumstances Mailman will set that field: 1. By default, Mailman will not touch that field, but will pass it through if it exists. 2. When configured to do so, Mailman will add a fixed address (usually the list's posting address) that the list owner specifies to Reply-To. 3. Alternatively, when Mailman is configured to change the From address to mitigate rejections at subscribers' systems due to the DMARC protocol, Mailman will add the original From address to Reply-To. I think in the case of setting Reply-To to an specific address, the list owner may specifically ask Mailman to remove other addresses. I don't think that any mail servers (such as Postfix or Exchange) ever touch Reply-To. > I've already seen wrong/different than what was expected names > twice using Mail on Macbook. The message is sent, for example, by > Mario Rossi, and the system adds his email address to the cc. I don't recall for sure if there are circumstances where Mailman changes Cc, but I'm pretty sure it never does. I don't think that any mail servers (such as Postfix or Exchange) ever touch Cc, only the originating mail client does. > The problem is the reply-to field, because there one sees the name > of, for example, Claudio Bianchi, which has nothing to do with this > message and so I don't understand why his name appears above the > general address of the mailing list. What do you mean by "above"? Please quote exactly what is on screen. (Sorry, this list doesn't permit screenshots.) > With MS Outlook instead what one sees in the sent-by field is the > following: list name list-boun...@domain.ext on behalf of XXX via list name > l...@domain.ext. By "sent-by field" do you mean the "From" field? That sort of looks like something Mailman might produce, but not exactly (which means Mailman did *not* produce it). I believe in the case of DMARC reformatting Mailman produces the "XXX via list name " portion, but it will *definitely* not put "list-bounces" anywhere in From. Check that you are quoting exactly. If so, I think that is Outlook hallucinating. Outlook definitely displays garbage under some conditions, and I think I remember this particular problem being an Outlook misfeature. Specifically, it grabs the content of the "Sender" field and puts it before "on behalf of". > Is it possible to have l...@domain.ext instead of > list-boun...@domain.ext? The is the address Mailman puts in the "Sender" field (normally not displayed by mail clients). If Sender is present in the mail header, mail servers send various administrative messages to Sender rather than From or Reply-To, including non-delivery messages. You do not want to change the "Sender" field to the list-post address, because all those administrative messages would then go to the list, and many would likely be distributed to the subscribers. You do not want to remove the "Sender" field, because without it such messages would go to post authors but they probably cannot do anything useful with them (and sometimes there are many for just one post). > If you have any hints
[Mailman-Users] Re: Excessive or fatal bounces issue
On 11/22/23 4:03 AM, Florin Pasăre wrote: I would like to ask you where the system gets the names you see in the "sent by" field, because sometimes the name doesn't make it clear who is sending the email and we would like to know if it is something we can control or change. Another question is where the system gets the name of the person who appears in the "reply to" field. There are lots of possibilities here depending on your list's settings and the MUA you use to read the mail. If you are applying DMARC Munge From mitigations to the mail, a message which is `From: Joe User ` sent to `l...@example.net` will have it's From: changed to `From: Joe User via Listname `. If there is no display name in the original From: and u...@example.com is a list member, that member's name from the list membership is used unless the member has no name entry. Otherwise, the local part of the email address is used as in `From: user--- via Listname `. See https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mailman-coders/mailman/2.1/view/head:/Mailman/Handlers/CookHeaders.py#L137 for details. In this case, the original From: is added to Cc: or Reply-To: depending on list settings. See https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mailman-coders/mailman/2.1/view/head:/Mailman/Handlers/CookHeaders.py#L193 for details. If the list is not applying DMARC Munge From mitigations to the mail the From: is not changed and nothing is added to Cc: or Reply-To:. Other things might be done to Reply-To: depending on the list's General Options first_strip_reply_to, reply_goes_to_list and reply_to_address settings. I've already seen wrong/different than what was expected names twice using Mail on Macbook. Various MUAs have their own rules for what they display as the message sender which may not be the literal value in From:. The message is sent, for example, by Mario Rossi, and the system adds his email address to the cc. The problem is the reply-to field, because there one sees the name of, for example, Claudio Bianchi, which has nothing to do with this message and so I don't understand why his name appears above the general address of the mailing list. With MS Outlook instead what one sees in the sent-by field is the following: list name list-boun...@domain.ext on behalf of XXX via list name l...@domain.ext. Is it possible to have l...@domain.ext instead of list-boun...@domain.ext? See https://wiki.list.org/x/4030534 particularly the note at the bottom of the page. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan -- Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/ Member address: arch...@jab.org
[Mailman-Users] Re: Excessive or fatal bounces issue
Hello everyone, After a long time, we've finally managed to upgrade to the latest version of Mailman 2. Some of the original issues are resolved, thank you, but now we have different issues, more details below: I would like to ask you where the system gets the names you see in the "sent by" field, because sometimes the name doesn't make it clear who is sending the email and we would like to know if it is something we can control or change. Another question is where the system gets the name of the person who appears in the "reply to" field. I've already seen wrong/different than what was expected names twice using Mail on Macbook. The message is sent, for example, by Mario Rossi, and the system adds his email address to the cc. The problem is the reply-to field, because there one sees the name of, for example, Claudio Bianchi, which has nothing to do with this message and so I don't understand why his name appears above the general address of the mailing list. With MS Outlook instead what one sees in the sent-by field is the following: list name list-boun...@domain.ext on behalf of XXX via list name l...@domain.ext. Is it possible to have l...@domain.ext instead of list-boun...@domain.ext? If you have any hints for where to look or any ideas, it would be great. Thank you, Florin Pasăre, On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 4:50 PM Florin Pasăre wrote: > Hello and thank you. > I will forward these replies to the dev that manages the servers and see > if we can get an upgrade to the latest version of Mailman 2 and continue > from there. > Thank you again for your time. > > Florin Pasăre, > > > On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 10:26 AM Stephen J. Turnbull < > turnbull.stephen...@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote: > >> Florin Pasăre writes: >> >> > Thank you for your response. I know we should upgrade, but because >> > of company policies this is not really an option at the moment, >> >> Like Carl and Mark, I strongly recommend upgrading to most recent >> Mailman 2. This is straightforward, and during the process you can >> get round-the-clock support here because everyone has done it several >> times. You don't need to get the attention of developers, community >> support is excellent. >> >> You do not have to worry about losing archives from a Mailman 2 >> upgrade, because the archival format is just the mbox that your MTA >> produces for you. The web pages are a presentation that can be >> rebuilt (at some cost in time) at any time. In fact, the most recent >> month's pages are rebuilt from mboxes every day by a cron job. Even >> the URLs of individual messages remain the same (unless you edit the >> mbox by removing or reordering messages). (If you use an alternative >> to the bundled "Pipermail" archiver, you still probably have all the >> mboxes somewhere in the system, but you should check that.) >> >> > at least not an upgrade to Mailman 3. >> >> That is a project that will require some planning in any case. You >> can preserve the mbox files (and even leave the old Mailman 2 archive >> CGIs running), and in that sense you won't lose archives. However, >> the version of the Python email package in Python 3 does not cope well >> with some of the weird things you find in Mailman 2, and we have not >> yet learned how to catch and repair all of them at import time. Also, >> importing messages into HyperKitty changes all the message URLs >> (completely different format based on hashed Message-IDs rather than >> serial number). So you probably should think in terms of a man-week >> for planning, and a man-week or so for execution, anyway. >> >> I recommend you start "softening up" the CIO for a migration in a year >> or two. Eventually it's going to become painful to maintain Python 2 >> applications because even the oldest LTS distributions don't provide >> old system libraries needed by Python 2, or because QA or CISO says >> you can't use them any more because they're too old/vulnerable. >> >> Steve >> > -- Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/ Member address: arch...@jab.org
[Mailman-Users] Re: Excessive or fatal bounces issue
Hello and thank you. I will forward these replies to the dev that manages the servers and see if we can get an upgrade to the latest version of Mailman 2 and continue from there. Thank you again for your time. Florin Pasăre, On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 10:26 AM Stephen J. Turnbull < turnbull.stephen...@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote: > Florin Pasăre writes: > > > Thank you for your response. I know we should upgrade, but because > > of company policies this is not really an option at the moment, > > Like Carl and Mark, I strongly recommend upgrading to most recent > Mailman 2. This is straightforward, and during the process you can > get round-the-clock support here because everyone has done it several > times. You don't need to get the attention of developers, community > support is excellent. > > You do not have to worry about losing archives from a Mailman 2 > upgrade, because the archival format is just the mbox that your MTA > produces for you. The web pages are a presentation that can be > rebuilt (at some cost in time) at any time. In fact, the most recent > month's pages are rebuilt from mboxes every day by a cron job. Even > the URLs of individual messages remain the same (unless you edit the > mbox by removing or reordering messages). (If you use an alternative > to the bundled "Pipermail" archiver, you still probably have all the > mboxes somewhere in the system, but you should check that.) > > > at least not an upgrade to Mailman 3. > > That is a project that will require some planning in any case. You > can preserve the mbox files (and even leave the old Mailman 2 archive > CGIs running), and in that sense you won't lose archives. However, > the version of the Python email package in Python 3 does not cope well > with some of the weird things you find in Mailman 2, and we have not > yet learned how to catch and repair all of them at import time. Also, > importing messages into HyperKitty changes all the message URLs > (completely different format based on hashed Message-IDs rather than > serial number). So you probably should think in terms of a man-week > for planning, and a man-week or so for execution, anyway. > > I recommend you start "softening up" the CIO for a migration in a year > or two. Eventually it's going to become painful to maintain Python 2 > applications because even the oldest LTS distributions don't provide > old system libraries needed by Python 2, or because QA or CISO says > you can't use them any more because they're too old/vulnerable. > > Steve > -- Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/ Member address: arch...@jab.org
[Mailman-Users] Re: Excessive or fatal bounces issue
Florin Pasăre writes: > Thank you for your response. I know we should upgrade, but because > of company policies this is not really an option at the moment, Like Carl and Mark, I strongly recommend upgrading to most recent Mailman 2. This is straightforward, and during the process you can get round-the-clock support here because everyone has done it several times. You don't need to get the attention of developers, community support is excellent. You do not have to worry about losing archives from a Mailman 2 upgrade, because the archival format is just the mbox that your MTA produces for you. The web pages are a presentation that can be rebuilt (at some cost in time) at any time. In fact, the most recent month's pages are rebuilt from mboxes every day by a cron job. Even the URLs of individual messages remain the same (unless you edit the mbox by removing or reordering messages). (If you use an alternative to the bundled "Pipermail" archiver, you still probably have all the mboxes somewhere in the system, but you should check that.) > at least not an upgrade to Mailman 3. That is a project that will require some planning in any case. You can preserve the mbox files (and even leave the old Mailman 2 archive CGIs running), and in that sense you won't lose archives. However, the version of the Python email package in Python 3 does not cope well with some of the weird things you find in Mailman 2, and we have not yet learned how to catch and repair all of them at import time. Also, importing messages into HyperKitty changes all the message URLs (completely different format based on hashed Message-IDs rather than serial number). So you probably should think in terms of a man-week for planning, and a man-week or so for execution, anyway. I recommend you start "softening up" the CIO for a migration in a year or two. Eventually it's going to become painful to maintain Python 2 applications because even the oldest LTS distributions don't provide old system libraries needed by Python 2, or because QA or CISO says you can't use them any more because they're too old/vulnerable. Steve -- Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/ Member address: arch...@jab.org
[Mailman-Users] Re: Excessive or fatal bounces issue
On 8/3/23 20:17, Florin Pasăre wrote: : host seg-02.etnic.be[193.53.34.104] said: 550 #5.7.1 DMARC unauthenticated mail is prohibited. (in reply to end of DATA command) You need to ensure your outgoing mail is DKIM signed by your domain and you need to apply DMARC mitigations. These mitigations include the General Options -> from_is_list setting and the Privacy options... -> Sender filters -> dmarc_moderation_action setting. The former of these was first implemented in Mailman 2.1.16 and the latter in 2.1.18, although if your 2.1.15 is a vendor package, some of this may have been backported. Without DMARC mitigations, post from users in domains that publish DMARC policies of reject will probably be bounced by any recipient ISPs that check DMARC. See the FAQ articles at https://wiki.list.org/x/17891458 and https://wiki.list.org/x/17891477 for more information about DMARC. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan -- Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/ Member address: arch...@jab.org
[Mailman-Users] Re: Excessive or fatal bounces issue
On 8/3/2023 8:28 PM, Florin Pasăre wrote: I know we should upgrade, but because of company policies this is not really an option at the moment, at least not an upgrade to Mailman 3. Even upgrading to the 2.1.39 (latest) would be a good idea and may solve some of the problems. (It's a fairly easy upgrade, please look into it.) Later, z! -- Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/ Member address: arch...@jab.org
[Mailman-Users] Re: Excessive or fatal bounces issue
Hello, Stephen, Thank you for your response. I know we should upgrade, but because of company policies this is not really an option at the moment, at least not an upgrade to Mailman 3. The main issue is fear of losing the email archive. I've replied with some errors/bounces that we received. I will try to reply to your other questions as soon as I get the information. Thank you, Florin Pasăre, On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 1:48 PM Stephen J. Turnbull < turnbull.stephen...@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote: > Florin Pasăre writes: > > > Hello, > > I've been having some issues lately. We are using Mailman 2.1.15. > > Mailman 2.1.15 was released in 2012, ie, long before the AOL/Yahoo > "contact list leak" fiasco. This means your lists are unable to > dealwith anti-phishing and anti-spam measures adopted by many sites > (and specifically AOL and Yahoo and their successor operators). > > You should upgrade to the most recent Mailman 2 for now, and strongly > consider upgrade to Mailman 3 in the near future. (Both Mailman 2 and > Python 2 are long since "end of life", and increasingly vulnerable to > attack as they are not being actively developed.) Make sure you check > the upgrade notes for any special procedures and requirements for > supporting software. > > Recent Mailman provides a large number of important new features. > Most important, many recipient sites participate in the DMARC and ARC > protocols. The important aspect of DMARC is that a site can declare > that emails with "From" address in that domain MUST have a valid DKIM > signature from that site (called "From alignment"), otherwise the > recipient should reject or discard the email. Because mailing lists > frequently make changes such as appending footers to the body and > prepending list tags to Subject which invalidate DKIM signatures, From > alignment will fail on all mailing lists messages. I cannot be sure > without more information whether your users are running into this > problem, but it's usually pretty obvious even to non-experts, because > mail from a person at site X starts bouncing for everybody at several > sites. > > Recent Mailman provides two options to deal with this. The first is > to rewrite the address in From from 'John Doe ' > to something like 'John Doe via Your List ' > for all posts passing through the list. The second is to do the same > rewriting, but only for sending domains which publish a "please > reject" policy. These are both per-list options. > > It also provides a number of other security improvement, in particular > protection against cross-site scripting. > > The ARC protocol deals with the From alignment problem in a different > way. Each participating mail gateway validates the DKIM signature, > adds information about the result to the mail, and digitally signs > that information. So this basically amounts to each gateway > testifying that "everything was OK when it got to me, I made some > changes and signed them, check that." Of course this depends on the > final recipient trusting intermediary who makes changes, but in most > cases that's only your list. > > Mailman 2 doesn't provide ARC, but ARC is best implemented in the > MTA. Mailman 3 does have an implementation, but we still recommend > doing it in the border MTAs as defined by the ARC RFC. > > Note that the two DMARC "From" modifications and ARC are all > substitutes for each other, with differing advantages and > disadvantages. You can get both DMARC features just by upgrading > Mailman 2, which you should do anyway to improve the overall security > of the Internet. To get ARC, you need to install additional software > to your MTAs (or upgrade all the way to Mailman 3). > > > in the last months the number of bounces we get has increased. We > > receive these bounce notifications informing us that the given > > *subscription has been disabled* due to *excessive or fatal bounces > > *(up to around 30 bounce notifications triggered by a single email > > sent to one of the listservs). > > [Disclaimer: "Listserv" is the trademark of a commercial mailing list > manager owned by L-Soft, and should not be used to refer to Mailman > installations.] > > I'm not sure why you would experience an uptick more recently than say > 2014-2016 when many mail servers adopted stricter policies toward > malicious mail. > > > Every time we get such notifications, we untick the bounce under > > “nomail [reason]" in the admin management site for each of the > > email addresses that haven been disabled by the system. > > If these are people who are regularly reading their email, this is a > somewhat dangerous policy. They're just going to get disabled again, > and perhaps unsubscribed. In the meantime, they're losing mail. You > really need to investigate why these bounces are happening. By far > most delivery failures these days are due to recipient site policy, > not equipment or software failures. Occasionally inattentive users > exceed mailbox
[Mailman-Users] Re: Excessive or fatal bounces issue
Hello and thank you for your reply. Here are the answers to your questions: 1. Your MTA logs probably have clues - with the reasons for the bounce(s). I'd love to see what the recipient servers think. Here some sample about the bounces. Sorry but for privacy I hid the email name but left the domain : host seg-02.etnic.be[193.53.34.104] said: 550 #5.7.1 DMARC unauthenticated mail is prohibited. (in reply to end of DATA command) : host smtp01.noc-science.at[144.65.134.41] said: 554 5.7.1 This email from IP 185.224.197.180 has been rejected. The email message was detected as spam. (in reply to end of DATA command) : host incoming-1.mail.etat.lu[185.106.25.64] said: 550 #5.7.1 DMARC unauthenticated mail is prohibited. (in reply to end of DATA command) : host jarilof.msmt.cz[195.113.76.11] said: 554 5.7.1 This email from IP 185.224.197.180 has been rejected. The email message was detected as spam. (in reply to end of DATA command) : host mx7.sitnet.dk[188.64.157.7] said: 550 #5.7.1 DMARC unauthenticated mail is prohibited. (in reply to end of DATA command) : host primary.us.email.fireeyecloud.com[3.93.93.44] said: 550 5.7.26 ETP205 DMARC Failure for domain () - 3yPiBJU-67053-09423C05683CD7BFB463fd19b7b (in reply to end of DATA command) : host mx5.sitnet.dk[188.64.157.5] said: 550 #5.7.1 DMARC unauthenticated mail is prohibited. (in reply to end of DATA command) : host nzqasmtp.nzqa.govt.nz[163.7.134.150] said: 550 5.7.1 rejected by DMARC policy for qqi.ie (in reply to end of DATA command) 1. DO you DKIM-sign the list emails and have DMARC mitigation. Yes, we do. 1. Do you have SPF records published? Yes, we do. 1. Do you have stats on the bounces? Unfortunately I haven’t a stats but only the mail archive. I don't know if there is a feature in Mailman that lets me see bounce statistics. We done some test with mailtester.com, below the results. https://www.mail-tester.com/test-92yqfu796 Thank you, Florin Pasăre, On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 6:55 PM Odhiambo Washington wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 6:23 PM Florin Pasăre wrote: > >> Hello, >> I've been having some issues lately. We are using Mailman 2.1.15. >> I've looked over the FAQ but the only thing that I could find is to >> contact >> the ISPs and ask to be whitelisted - am I understanding this correctly? >> Here is a brief description of the issue: >> >> Our server hosts 5 listserv, the biggest one counts over 530 subscribed >> members from 55 different countries. >> >> >> >> We had received sporadic bounces triggered by emails sent to these lists >> since the install of the server in 2016, but in the last months the number >> of bounces we get has increased. We receive these bounce notifications >> informing us that the given *subscription has been disabled* due to >> *excessive >> or fatal bounces *(up to around 30 bounce notifications triggered by a >> single email sent to one of the listservs). Every time we get such >> notifications, we untick the bounce under “nomail [reason]" in the admin >> management site for each of the email addresses that haven been disabled >> by >> the system. >> >> >> >> Furthermore, it has happened several times in the past few months that a >> number of email addresses have been automatically removed from the >> listservs (at the same time, from different countries). We have not found >> an explanation for why this happens or a solution, so the only thing we >> are >> able to do is to manually add them back to the listservs. >> >> >> >> We have also asked these colleagues for which we have received bounces to >> check whether there is anything blocking the listservs’ emails from their >> side (note that many of them work in ministries or agencies with strong >> security features), and to add the server IP to the white list, but the >> problem persists. >> >> >> Thank you for your time, >> >> >> Florin Pasăre, >> > > In summary: > > 1. Your MTA logs probably have clues - with the reasons for the bounce(s). > I'd love to see what the recipient servers think. > 2. You have not mentioned if you DKIM-sign the list emails and have DMARC > mitigation. > 3. Do you have SPF records published? > 4. Do you have stats on the bounces? > > > -- > Best regards, > Odhiambo WASHINGTON, > Nairobi,KE > +254 7 3200 0004/+254 7 2274 3223 > "Oh, the cruft.", egrep -v '^$|^.*#' ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ :-) > [How to ask smart questions: > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html] > -- Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/
[Mailman-Users] Re: Excessive or fatal bounces issue
On 7/31/2023 5:53 AM, Florin Pasăre wrote: We are using Mailman 2.1.15. Why are you using such an old version of mailman? It's quite possible that a newer version, along with DKIM/SPF DNS records that Odhiambo mentioned, would clear up at least part of the problems. Also, please look at which domains are bouncing mail and how often. Can you individually send to those people? Later, z! -- Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/ Member address: arch...@jab.org
[Mailman-Users] Re: Excessive or fatal bounces issue
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 6:23 PM Florin Pasăre wrote: > Hello, > I've been having some issues lately. We are using Mailman 2.1.15. > I've looked over the FAQ but the only thing that I could find is to contact > the ISPs and ask to be whitelisted - am I understanding this correctly? > Here is a brief description of the issue: > > Our server hosts 5 listserv, the biggest one counts over 530 subscribed > members from 55 different countries. > > > > We had received sporadic bounces triggered by emails sent to these lists > since the install of the server in 2016, but in the last months the number > of bounces we get has increased. We receive these bounce notifications > informing us that the given *subscription has been disabled* due to > *excessive > or fatal bounces *(up to around 30 bounce notifications triggered by a > single email sent to one of the listservs). Every time we get such > notifications, we untick the bounce under “nomail [reason]" in the admin > management site for each of the email addresses that haven been disabled by > the system. > > > > Furthermore, it has happened several times in the past few months that a > number of email addresses have been automatically removed from the > listservs (at the same time, from different countries). We have not found > an explanation for why this happens or a solution, so the only thing we are > able to do is to manually add them back to the listservs. > > > > We have also asked these colleagues for which we have received bounces to > check whether there is anything blocking the listservs’ emails from their > side (note that many of them work in ministries or agencies with strong > security features), and to add the server IP to the white list, but the > problem persists. > > > Thank you for your time, > > > Florin Pasăre, > In summary: 1. Your MTA logs probably have clues - with the reasons for the bounce(s). I'd love to see what the recipient servers think. 2. You have not mentioned if you DKIM-sign the list emails and have DMARC mitigation. 3. Do you have SPF records published? 4. Do you have stats on the bounces? -- Best regards, Odhiambo WASHINGTON, Nairobi,KE +254 7 3200 0004/+254 7 2274 3223 "Oh, the cruft.", egrep -v '^$|^.*#' ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ :-) [How to ask smart questions: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html] -- Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/ Member address: arch...@jab.org
