Larry Finch writes:
DMARC helped briefly, but spammers and phishers have already found
ways to defeat it. I have seen a surge in AOL-based phishing this
week. They simply use the AOL screen name in the comment in the
FROM field with a non-AOL address. As most mail clients don't
display
Perry E. Metzger writes:
have been significant academic studies of the market, and they
indicate that your portrayal isn't accurate.
I was incautious; smart spammers go back at least to Canter and
Siegel. What I should have written was spammers are greedy, but many
aren't too smart.
I
Perry E. Metzger writes:
BTW, I don't quite understand this. Why would splatting random
addresses at you help them? Why not just pick real addresses they
control? Successfully subscribing is easy, and generating seemingly
random addresses won't get them subscribed since the addresses will
Peter Shute writes:
It's now about 2 months since Yahoo introduced their DMARC reject
policy. I'm taking this as a sign that it's unlikely that they'll
ever reverse the decision
On the DMARC list at IETF, a senior Yahoo! sysadmin said that because
the attack based on stolen address book
Peter Shute writes:
I'm interested to know what's in store because our current tactic
is to reject new Yahoo and AOL subscribers, encourage existing ones
to get new addresses, and to forward their messages by hand. This
is obviously not going to work if other providers gradually start
Mark Sapiro writes:
The footer attached to non-digest messages is in the list's web admin
interface at Non-digest options - msg_footer and that attached to
digests is Digest options - digest_footer.
You can set these to anything you want or set them empty to not add
footers at all.
Russell Clemings writes:
At least the current release of v11.44, as of last week.
Well, good for them! That doesn't mean all their clients will
upgrade, of course, but it sure does make it a lot easier.
--
Mailman-Users mailing list
M Winther writes:
If I use any of my my Swedish email addresses (.se) my messages
keep bouncing on account of iajsdiscussionlist.org: DNS server
failure. Yahoo groups intermittently has the same
problem. However, in this case the messages just disappear. So I
must use my google email
Steve Matzura writes:
I am a site admin for a system built on Debian version 7 (Wheezy). The
current available mailman package distribution version is 2.1.15 but I
want to use 2.1.18-1, which means, unless I miss my guess, it's got to
be built from source. If this isn't so, I'd greatly
Tanstaafl writes:
It *does*...
It does?? As you described it, he can let passwordmaker choose his
password. But he says he can't do that. Or he can specify the whole
password as the prefix, which is insecure. And AIUI that's not
acceptable to him either, as far as I can see he's very
Odhiambo Washington writes:
I have read the FAQs so I don't believe I missed one, but it could be
possible. Is there a way, with full personalization, that I can include a
logo in posts on a list? A remote possibility...
Whose logo? The list's or the user's? Where do you want this logo
Odhiambo Washington writes:
An organization is 'sponsoring' a list and wanted to have their
logo included on all messages on the list. I understand that this
means the list has to somehow modify the message as it leaves going
to subscribers.
I would think so, yes.
I was thinking you
Tanstaafl writes:
Chill Stephen.
Chill yourself. You had two rounds to figure out what he was asking
for, and missed it twice. Then you tell him he doesn't understand
totally how it works. I really *was* puzzled as to how you could
think the system you described met his requirements.
Now I
Tanstaafl writes:
You can create multiple accounts for the same URL with passwordmaker, so
I think you just don';t understand totally how it works.
I have no clue what you're talking about. The OP shares a password
with several other users, and does not have the right to change it, or
to
Mark Sapiro writes:
If there are no 'DMARC' entries in Mailman's logs, it most likely means
the imports I show above didn't succeed in the python that Mailman is
using, in which case dmarc_moderaction_action will not be done at all.
If dmarc_moderation_action is not none (precisely
John Levine writes:
This is one of the most annoying things about Yahoo and AOL's misuse
of DMARC -- they're practically forcing people to use hacks to show
unauthenticated fake From: lines.
Not only that, they're doing it themselves. :-(
John Levine writes:
My understanding is that DMARC WAS going through the standardization
process, and actually was to the state where experimental use was
justified (and in some sense actually required). ...
No, not at all. DMARC was designed and implemented by a small closed
group
Mark Rousell writes:
It seems to me that if a protocol so easily allows (or even
effectively encourages) usage that craps on existing legitimate
Internet usage then the protocol (and its designers) must be in
part to blame.
I don't see any real difference between ESP abuse of p=reject
Ron Guerin writes:
With great sadness, I'm trying to deal with the DMARC problem certain
providers have decided to create for everyone else, and for some reason,
even after turning the mung option on in the web interface, there's no
munging going on. (wrap doesn't wrap either)
I have
Richard Damon writes:
On 5/25/14, 11:30 AM, Mark Rousell wrote:
Whilst Yahoo and AOL are the ones who have chosen to
use/misuse/abuse DMARC in this way, it could also be said that
DMARC (and all its backers on its current form) are to blame
precisely because DMARC *allows*
Allan Hansen writes:
I just realized that setting the digest option could be a temporary
solution for my Yahoo and AOL subscribers
Just make sure you set it for *all* users, not just those using Yahoo!
and AOL. The important thing is that non-AOL/Yahoo! subscribers be
protected from the
Richard Damon writes:
From what I have seen, any version of Mailman before 2.1.16 (and
preferably 2.1.18) just isn't compatible with DMARC
Please, it's the other way around! ;-) DMARC is the interloper, and
some insiders fear that this mess will derail progress to RFC status
of the useful
Natu writes:
One difference between my method and yours is that my mail logs
will show that somebody actually replied to that address where as
with yours the reply would stop at the senders SMTP server. Not
that significant, but it might be useful to know if users are using
those
Natu writes:
If there is a dkim signature and it fails google will treat it as
spam
Note that, taking your words literally, this is against the DKIM RFCs
-- a failed signature is supposed to be treated the same as a lack of
a signature.
That doesn't mean that Google can't or doesn't use it.
Mark Rousell writes:
Can Mailman include the web archive URL for a message in the message
header itself?
Mailman 2 can't. Mailman 3 is able to do it, but I'm not sure what
the state of the art on implementing this conveniently for list owers
is.
As far as I can see, Mailman should have
Sergio Durigan Junior writes:
As you can see, the first two Received: headers got messed up somehow,
I don't understand what you mean by messed up. They looked
perfectly readable and RFC-conforming to me.
and the lines are not being prefix by \t but by one single space
char.
This is the
Peter Shute writes:
Why isn't this the default setting? Is there some disadvantage to
it?
Until now, you only needed it when one of your peers was seriously
broken. DMARC p=reject now means that AOL and Yahoo! are breaking
other hosts en masse.
Disadvantage, yes. It requires resources
Conrad G T Yoder writes:
On May 15, 2014, at 8:48 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote:
The log you display is not a true bounce.
Gotcha. I guess someone thought it was a true bounce and
configured their servers appropriately. :^)
Could be.
The other possibility
Peter Shute writes:
Thanks, found it. I didn't realise there were sub menus for that stuff.
That's not good. Is there something we could do to help make it
obvious that (many) more settings are accessible?
--
Mailman-Users mailing list
Gary Algier writes:
I ran some tests this morning. I created an Exchange distribution list here
and added myself five ways on the list:
1. On our Exchange server (how I receive internal emails)
2. On a local Linux server running sendmail and dovecot (how I receive real
mail)
3. A
Sascha Rissel writes:
Hello there,
I am running a vServer on Debian6.
Via apt-get install mailman I installed and set up Mailman 2.1.13, which
is running fine with 5 mailing lists on my server.
Motivated by all those discussions about Yahoo's DMARC on this list, I
wondered
Conrad G T Yoder writes:
Are these true bounces (ie, permanent delivery failures) or just the
temporary failures due to rate limiting, causing delays of many hours
or days in delivery?
It is a true bounce - mail is being rejected. The error message is
phrased as a temporary
Hi all,
I just discovered that the spam-checker for a non-Mailman list I
subscribe to (I suspect SpamAssassin but I can't confirm yet, the MLM
is ListServ) is introducing 8-bit characters into the header.
What appears to be happening is that the original post uses a
Content-Transfer-Encoding of
Gary Algier writes:
I have been following the discussion of the DMARC issues and Mailman's
attempts to live with it. I was wondering if anyone has an Executive
Summary of the DMARC issue in a general sense.
How about the following:
DMARC is a set of protocols for Internet mail that are
Barry S. Finkel writes:
Is this also true?
Users from DMARC-reject domains send mail to mailing lists, and the
resulting mail from the mailing list is rejected. Enough
rejections can cause the mailing list possibly to be blacklisted
for sending lots of spam mail.
The rejections
Peter Shute writes:
When MS365 forwards the mails sent to the distribution list, should
that make the DMARC authentication fail? I thought that only
happened if you made changes like adding a prefix to the subject
line like Mailman does.
If it forwards verbatim *and* the sending domain
Conrad G T Yoder writes:
Has anyone had to deal with bounces due to rate limiting from
Roadrunner/Time Warner?
Are these true bounces (ie, permanent delivery failures) or just the
temporary failures due to rate limiting, causing delays of many hours
or days in delivery?
Mark Sapiro writes:
On 05/12/2014 01:25 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
How about multipart/alternative:
message header
multipart/alternative
part header
message/rfc822# original message in all its glory
part header
sherwin writes:
mid...@lists.ibiblio.org: Command died with status 2:
/usr/lib/mailman/mail/mailman post midfex. Command output: Group
mismatch
error. Mailman expected the mail wrapper script to be executed as group
mailman, but the system's mail server executed the
Lindsay Haisley writes:
What goes into an address comment is, or should be, purely
informational on a human level, and ignored on a computational
level.
Unfortunately, we can't depend on that:
There are a few possible mechanisms that attempt mitigation of
[display name] attacks,
Mark Sapiro writes:
They probably aren't using the subscribe form on the listinfo page but
rather posting the data directly to the subscribe CGI. Try moving
mailman's cgi-bin/subscribe aside to totally disable web subscribe.
Yeah, this seems like a different attack from the last one I
Lindsay Haisley writes:
A nice fix, albeit probably total pie-in-the-sky, would be the
establishment of a MIME Content-Type: multipart/list-post, a variation
on (or extension of) mulpart/mixed. MUAs SHOULD (in the RFC 2119 sense)
effectively hide the outermost enclosing MIME envelope
Mark Sapiro writes:
I finally got around to testing this.
Thanks, Mark!
--
Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Security Policy:
Richard Damon writes:
On 5/9/14, 10:13 PM, John Levine wrote:
The correct response is either for senders to stop publishing DMARC
policies that don't match the way their users use mail (fat chance),
or for recipient systems to skip the DMARC checks on mail from sources
that are
Joseph Brennan writes:
Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote:
Honestly, they (one of the principal DMARC spec authors works for
Yahoo) ignored their own advice, imagine how well that would go
over in some other industries.
I didn't write that, and I dissent from
Glenn Sieb writes:
Then please work on your phrasing.
That times time and effort, which I will start saving right now.
--
Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ:
Peter Shute writes:
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
The DMARC WG advocates putting list-post in From in place
of a DMARC p=reject address. I advocate accepting their
advice for stock Mailman, and avoiding other non-conforming
workarounds until the market demands them
Peter Shute writes:
Thanks, I understand now. If the result of this is that replies go
to everyone on the list, this is something we don't want for our
list. Private replies becoming public means trouble, and we have
enough of it already when people Reply All by accident.
In that case,
Rob Lingelbach writes:
Is it possible the ‘personalize’ option moved elsewhere in
2.1.18-1? I’ve just updated to that version and don’t see it on
the Nondigest Options page.
Sorry, I haven't updated to 2.1.18-1 yet, I'm reading source and
missed a crucial qualification at the top of the
Glenn Sieb writes:
What my list owners want out of my lists, and what rules they
decide on for their lists, is not my business. By extension, it is
not yours.
If you just want to vent, please say so. I thought you were asking
for help.
If you want help, then the questions I asked are
Jim Popovitch writes:
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Mark Sapiro m...@msapiro.net wrote:
We are trying to talk with DMARC proponents,
You won't be successful until those people themselves figure out what
they are doing
That's true, but those folks (or, more accurately, their bosses)
Peter Shute writes:
So does this mean that any solution is going to be a choice between
ease of replying to the list and ease of accidental replying to the
list?
Yes, and that's an unsolvable problem. Some replies should be public,
some should be private, and only the user can know which
Peter Shute writes:
If it means that Reply vs Reply All work differently for list
messages from different domains,
It does.
will it only lead to users becoming hopelessly confused? Is there
anyone who's already using this who could report on the reactions
from users?
Good question.
Barry Warsaw writes:
On May 06, 2014, at 02:15 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
No, the point is that a phishing mail with
From: Chase Bank Customer Service serv...@chase.com.invalid
will sail right past DMARC, as currently set up.
So too will serv...@chase.com.ru without
Glenn Sieb writes:
So I updated to 2.1.18-1 today. Now we have a Reply-To that has the
poster's email and the list's email address.
A few of the lists I run block emails with more than one recipient, so
now this is going to be an adventure. (Ok, more like a nightmare, as
right now it
Lindsay Haisley writes:
$ dig +short -t txt _dmarc.paypal.com
v=DMARC1\; p=reject\; rua=mailto:d...@rua.agari.com\;
ruf=mailto:d...@bounce.paypal.com,mailto:d...@ruf.agari.com;
This probably is a problem of lesser magnitude than Yahoo! and AOL
FWIW, I don't consider it a problem at
Peter Shute writes:
How does Yahoo's DMARC policy reduce the benefit of Paypal's?
Because servers can't follow the reject recommendation without
No, it's because users get used to ignoring warnings about DMARC
issues. If it was *only* your bank, you'd learn to pay attention to
them. But
Peter Shute writes:
On 5 May 2014, at 4:59 pm, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org
wrote:
them. But when you (FVO you susceptible to phishing in the first
Sorry, what does FVO stand for?
Ah, excuse my abbreviations. FVO = for values of; the intended
implication is that the you
Andrew Partan writes:
Until people figure out real ways of making DMARC work with forwrders
mailing lists (see ietf-...@ietf.org for one place discussions
are going on), I think it useful to have more work-around hacks out
there so that people can experiment with them to see which ones
Andrew Partan writes:
Do you have a setting to change From: user@domain to From:
user@domain.INVALID - that is the hack I would like to use.
Seems reasonable, but for the reason Mark gave and because it makes
personal replies a little bit harder, I *personally* would tend to
avoid it, and I
Mark Sapiro writes:
On 05/01/2014 09:33 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Mark Sapiro writes:
The transformations for anonymous_list are applied before any of these
actions, so if actions other than No are applied on an anonymous list,
they will apply to the anonymized message
Larry Stone writes:
Seems to me saying “Try to ensure that 'From:' is “aligned” with …”
does it.
No. The problem is the author's email provider (ie, the mail domain
of the person whose address is in the original From). For most lists,
Mailman does *not* want From to be aligned with any
Mark Sapiro writes:
I'm not sure what to change at this point. I really don't want another
change in the attribute name, but maybe.
Yeah, I know. On the other hand, now that it really matters, this is
probably the last chance to make such a change.
I'm also not sure about alignment as
Mark Sapiro writes:
from_is_list (general): Replace the From: header address with the list's
posting address to mitigate issues stemming from the original From:
domain's DMARC or similar policies.
That's good!
[snip my suggestion :]
The following actions are applied to all list
Mark Sapiro writes:
dmarc_moderation_action is unreliable. If the DNS lookup times out, the
message is assumed unaffected by DMARC.
Ouch. I suppose you could hard-code a list of miscreants, er, domains
that have used p=reject and fall back on that (including a check for a
change in policy
sherwin writes:
I run a forum on Ibiblio and am seeing a strange phenomenon
lately.
It's not a phenomenon, it's a policy of Yahoo! and AOL. The other
services' users are collateral damage, as the US DoD likes to say.
I would like to know what is happening to these missing messages that
Peter Shute writes:
Another question is what happens if yahoo groups receive aol
bounces. They might not use them to disable or unsubscribe members,
which would limit the damage to just non delivery.
Yahoo! is a proprietary service, not in the habit of telling anybody
what they're doing or
Mark Sapiro writes:
I changed it. In the 2.1.18 final it will say:
-
from_is_list (general): Replace the sender with the list address to
conform with policies like DMARC.
Replace the sender with the list address to
Gregori Kurtzman, DDS writes:
Your address drimpla...@aol.com.dmarc.invalid is invalid, I hope
you're reading the list.
Need some insight and help. I have recently taken over a list that
is using mailman v 2.1.14. And we are getting a lot of bounce
notices regarding members and
jdd writes:
and by the way logs are not always easy to find. Mailman's are not (on
openSUSE) available in /var/log, but in /var/lib/mailman/logs
True. Postfix has a utility postconf and Mailman 3 will have a
similar capability (mailman info IIRC; maybe Mailman 2 has it too?)
that allows
Jim Popovitch writes:
In 2 years people will be wondering how DMARC did hardly anything to
slow miscreants, just like some wondered why SPF, DKIM, PGP, SenderID,
etc didn't solved all of mankind's problems.
N.B. PGP *would* solve the world's problems if the GPG folks would
spend more time
Peter Shute writes:
A fully integrated web forum would solve the problem. Yahoo groups
can be accessed via the web or by email, but had other problems I
can't remember.
Mailman 3 is taking some steps in that direction in the HyperKitty
archiver module. Also, last year I mentored a GSoC
Jim Popovitch writes:
TBH, I'm not sure what else there is to look for. :-) GMail, every so
often, is telling my Mailman that it needs to Auth in order to reflect
From:gmail to other gmail customers. It's like DMARC without
following the DMARC standard (GMail has a p=none policy).
Is
Richard Damon writes:
On 4/21/14, 6:56 AM, Amit Bhatt wrote:
As a list administrator, do I have any option to remove any particular
post from the archive of all messages?
Please share how to do this.
Thanks,
Amit Bhatt
Not through the Web interface. I believe if you
Lindsay Haisley writes:
It's very ugly, though, especially if for some reason you have no
display name to work with.
Agreed! But the display name is free form and strictly informational.
Could this not be the subscriber name of the author, if it's part of the
subscription record?
Jim Popovitch writes:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull
step...@xemacs.orgwrote:
So maybe it does, but in my spamtrap I have only 67/4359 (1.5%)
messages from Yahoo (based on grepping for ^From:.*yahoo and
^From: respectively), vs. 658/38748 (1.7%) in my saved
Sylvain Viart writes:
Le 18/04/2014 09:41, Alain Williams a écrit :
I may have missed some topic, but why SRS
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Rewriting_Scheme) doesn't
come to rescue here?
SRS rewrites the *envelope* sender.
My understanding is that the YAHOO DKIM uses the
Lindsay Haisley writes:
On Wed, 2014-04-16 at 15:34 -0500, Mike Starr wrote:
I know there aren't any teeth behind RFCs but it might at least get
their attention.
The real problem is that RFCs are based on working practice,
preferably acknowledged best practice. DMARC is an experiment
Larry Kuenning writes:
Query: On a very low-traffic mailing list (i.e. one where the list
admin doesn't think it too much trouble), would it be a reasonable
workaround for the list admin to paste the content of a
message-to-be-moderated (i.e. one From: a yahoo address) into a new
Hi, Laura!
Laura Creighton writes:
But the Europython mailing list is configured so that its messages
come out
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
This isn't from the list or site configuration, this is from the
poster's mail user agent (MUA). The mailing list does not choose
I see you've already responded, but there are a few things I'd like to
clarify.
Laura Creighton writes:
But you and I could quite easily both want English(USA) as the
default language for our lists, but you also want us-ascii while I
want utf-8. The way things stand now, we cannot both
Lindsay Haisley writes:
Stephen, thanks for your generous reply, and your insights. It
does seem to me, though, that when megabucks are riding on
additional bandwidth, and if Yahoo is serious about controlling
spam, they might start by putting some resources behind putting
their own
Lindsay Haisley writes:
Mailman to change the From: address to a VERP-like address with the
author's address encapsulated within an address @ the list server.
Any mail received by the list server for this address would have
its address parsed by Mailman and be redirected to the original
Lindsay Haisley writes:
I've been working with the list admins of one of FMP's hosted lists and
they've seen over 100 addresses unsubscribed from the usual suspects -
yahoo.com, att.net, Comcast, etc., but no Gmail accounts and there are
228 of them on the list. Nonetheless, the PC World
Jose I. Rojas writes:
We have a community group mail list which we run using Mailman and
have lately had a problem getting our emails to members who have
Bellsouth and Yahoo email addresses. I've seen the posts about DMARC
but am not that tech-savvy to figure out what this means and how
Alain Williams writes:
They should have allowed/defined a new 2xy code that could be
returned, eg 253 which means ''Mail accepted but will be
discarded''.
That's problematic. It would require an extension negotiated via EHLO
at least, and maybe a new SMTP RFC, since there's no registry
Conrad G T Yoder writes:
Since we’re on the topic of items residing at bugs.launchpad.net,
what are the odds of Bug #1067953
(https://bugs.launchpad.net/mailman/+bug/1067953) getting a little
love? Not quite as easy a change as this one, but would benefit many
I’m sure. Everyone
jason fb writes:
Isn't this DMARC issue a bellwether for the end of email lists as
we know them?
Yes and no. Those who like mailing lists as we know them will
continue to use them that way, assuming that there's no active
interference from the infrastructure itself. (This is supported by a
Jim Popovitch writes:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull
step...@xemacs.org wrote:
Jim Popovitch writes:
Bingo! The dmarc folks (many of who are IETF participants) ignored
and performed an end-run around the standards process.
Not really. The basic
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Lindsay Haisley fmo...@fmp.com wrote:
So just to be clear, putting a damper on this at this point requires
_only_ that posts from yahoo.com be blocked from posting to a list. Is
this correct? This can be done by selectively unsubscribing (or
Keith Bierman writes:
While the process of revising the RFC should have been followed,
No revision of the RFC was made, and Yahoo! followed the RFC in
updating its own DMARC policy. That's where DMARC sucks[tm].
it does seem that they are trying to solve a real problem.
Perhaps.
Mail
Jim Popovitch writes:
Bingo! The dmarc folks (many of who are IETF participants) ignored
and performed an end-run around the standards process.
Not really. The basic protocols (SPF and DKIM) are RFCs, and that's
really what the IETF process is for. What people (including bloated
corporate
Peter Shute writes:
I don't know if we are doing SPF/DKIM ( or what they are).
You should ask the people responsible for your mailserver. SPF and
DKIM in themselves are good things because they prevent rejections of
mail that you send directly to another domain that implements them,
and
Mark Sapiro writes:
Mailman 2.1.16 and up already has the ability to either mung the From:
header or wrap the original post in an outer message From: the list.
The major problem is it requires site configuration action to make this
option available to list owners.
Given that the whole
Keith Bierman writes:
For an announce only list (viz. only very special people may post, and
those people aren't from yahoo accounts) will this DMARC issue be easily
avoided by not allowing any posts from yahoo members (they can read from
others, correct?)
Yes.
BTW, hardly naive (the
Sylvain Viart writes:
Development question, is there a way to test the handler against a mail
content, outside of the full mailman context?
I forget the exact incantation, but I have a test list, and just test
for the test list at the top of the Handler, and return success
immediately.
Siniša Burina writes:
Basically, Yahoo insists that their own mail servers are the only
ones that can originate the message with @yahoo.com domain in the
From header. Not Return-Path, Not the envelope sender, but exactly
the From header in the message itself. If this practice gets
Mark Sapiro writes:
Unfortunately, when I actually turned this on in response to
Yahoo's change in DMARC policy, I got complaints from users of
Apple iOS iThings that their mail clients do not deal well with
this message,
The iOS 6 mail client was just plain unusable, and in very limited
Hank van Cleef writes:
The esteemed Bruce Harrison has said:
Looked for the smrsh config in sendmail, but this version on
Debian seems not to use that.
Check what was installed with dpkg --listfiles sendmail. Also look
for a sendmail-smrsh package (or some such name) in aptitude (or
Christopher Adams writes:
A person is receiving mail through a list. The address that they are
currently using (@gmail.com) is not subscribed to the list.
Change your list to personalize the message, specifically to add a
link to the user's personal options page in the footer.
Of course you
701 - 800 of 1551 matches
Mail list logo
