Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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 >

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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 >

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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.

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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). >

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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. >>> *

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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.

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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?

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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)

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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,

[HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

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 > >