Right now I'm able to offer a choice: either drop all the mailing-list message munging, or let the mailing list munging extend to From and DKIM-Signature headers. Both will ensure delivery of mail for the foreseeable future, both will have no direct impact on how we use mail, no matter who decides to adopt rejection policies for DMARC now or in the future.
On Monday, June 2, 2014 10:34 PM, Nathan Kurz <[email protected]> wrote: On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > Would you say the same thing about gmail accounts? Its only > a matter of time before they follow Y!'s lead. No, I presume that the Lucy lists have more people who use only GMail or other Google-based accounts. My statement wasn't intended to be prescriptive, just indicating that I personally would prefer [list-tags] over Yahoo support. Having both would of course be preferable than having to choose. It seems like you've come up with a solution that provides both tags and Yahoo support? Do you think this approach will continue to work as others start enforcing DMARC? Would it make sense to append .invalid all to all addresses now rather than waiting? --nate > On Monday, June 2, 2014 10:02 PM, Nathan Kurz <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have a strong reaction to keep the tags intact with the name of the > list included. But perhaps I'm just stuck in my ways? > I'll adapt if necessary, but also no have problem with leaving Yahoo > accounts broken. > > --nate > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Marvin Humphrey <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Joe Schaefer >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Lists which are configured to either add a trailer, >>> remove certain mime components, or munge the >>> Subject header are susceptible to Y!'s DMARC >>> configuration. >>> >>> The munging is visible in this email message right >>> on the From: line. However it will not impact attempts >>> to send me direct replies since Y! also sets an >>> (unmunged) Reply-To header. >>> >>> Had I not done this many/most of your mail servers >>> would have rejected this email from being delivered >>> to you. I consider this solution an acceptable tradeoff >>> that does not force you to make any compensating >>> changes to your current list config. >> >> Thanks, Joe! >> >> It looks like the subject munging has been changed -- it used to add >> `[lucy-dev]` and now it's only adding `[dev]`. Rather than file a ticket >> to >> ask Infra to restore the old behavior, what do people think about getting >> rid >> of the tags -- on all four Lucy lists? >> >> Marvin Humphrey > >
