On Sun, 03 Feb 2019, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > Hi > > I can understand the view that gmail, yahoo and others are to blame for the > lost message. It is after all that service that rejected it. I do however > think we need to live with the fact that we may have users that tend to use > such services. If it is just for me I can safely ignore the problem. These > emails are not that valuable to me, really. The reason why I brought this > up was to ensure that our users do not have the same problem. > If we conclude that this is not so important, then I can live with it. > > I cannot tell for sure what the fault was with that email. I'm not even > sure there were any specific fault with it. It may have been the rate of > things arriving or some similar factor. > > What I can tell is that lists.d.o do not follow gmail recommendations. And > some of them are generally good to avoid spam and other stuff. Several of those recommendations are nonsense. > > First of all the reverse address is not the same as the forward address: > > ola@tigereye:~/git/security-tracker$ getent hosts 184.108.40.206 > 220.127.116.11 bendel.debian.org > ola@tigereye:~/git/security-tracker$ getent hosts bendel.debian.org > 2001:41b8:202:deb:216:36ff:fe40:4002 bendel.debian.org Like that one.
> > I guess bendel has both IPv4 and IPv6. The reason why it was using IPv4 > this time was that my server do not have an IPv6 address. I guess this is > quite common too even though IPv6 gets more and more common these days. > > There is no SPF record for lists.debian.org. Should'nt we have that? no, the RFC says its not required. > > I guess these two problems above are a strong factor in this. > > And then finally the from address vary. I can understand that it may not be > the best to change that, but maybe we should have this as a per-list option. No chance. I would even leave the project when we start the *censored* of rewriting from addresses. Alex