Mo Zhou dijo [Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 02:02:18PM -0500]:
> > Thanks for the code and the figure. Indeed, the trend is confirmed by
> > fitting a linear model count ~ year to the new members list. The
> > coefficient is -1.39 member/year, which is significantly different from
> > zero (F[1,22] = 11.8,
On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 04:52:58PM +0100, Daniel Gröber wrote:
> That's certainly not something I'd advocate for. I want us to minimize the
> PITA for the technically literate without sacrifising general usability.
To be honest, I think that address rewriting might actually be part of
improving
On 2024-01-04 16:52:58 +0100 (+0100), Daniel Gröber wrote:
[...]
> Any good reason we cannot look at the MX domain (or in the worst case) ASN
> associated with mailserver IP to special case particularly offensive
> implementations such as this if looking at the DMARC policy works in the
> average
Hi Jeremy,
On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 03:11:59PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2024-01-04 15:54:28 +0100 (+0100), Daniel Gröber wrote:
> > could this rewrite scheme be applied only for recipients where it's
> > absolutely necessary?
>
> Unfortunately no. It *used* to be a popular assumption
On January 4, 2024 3:15:29 PM UTC, Colin Watson wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 03:54:28PM +0100, Daniel Gröber wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 05:10:43PM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> > >At least people could be warned that because of the domain they send
>> > >from their mail might not
On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 03:54:28PM +0100, Daniel Gröber wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 05:10:43PM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > >At least people could be warned that because of the domain they send
> > >from their mail might not get through.
> > >
> > My guess is that such a warning email
On 2024-01-04 15:54:28 +0100 (+0100), Daniel Gröber wrote:
[...]
> Just to make sure I understand the constraints: we can determine
> at sending time whether a particular domain is going to cause
> trouble or not, right? If so could this rewrite scheme be applied
> only for recipients where it's
On January 4, 2024 2:54:28 PM UTC, "Daniel Gröber" wrote:
>Hi Scott,
>
>On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 05:10:43PM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> >At least people could be warned that because of the domain they send
>> >from their mail might not get through.
>> >
>> My guess is that such a warning
Hi Scott,
On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 05:10:43PM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >At least people could be warned that because of the domain they send
> >from their mail might not get through.
> >
> My guess is that such a warning email (which is the only way we'd have to
> do it) would also cause a
9 matches
Mail list logo
