Thanks for pointing that out Phil. Normally I just email to my clients and not generally to mailing lists. I have since adjusted the DMARC record to be more relaxed to accommodate my participation in this community.
On 2/1/2017 1:20 AM, Phil Pennock wrote: > On 2017-01-31 at 22:09 -0600, Dan Liles wrote: >> I'm having a problem with this list - for some reason I'm not seeing replies >> to my answers in my inbox ( I have to look at the archive on the website ). > > You had replies from: James Lovejoy <[email protected]> > > Gmail is rejecting those replies as they come through the @exim.org > servers, because James has published a DMARC policy telling them to do > so. > > % dig +short -t txt _dmarc.lovejoytech.com > "v=DMARC1\;p=reject\;rua=mailto:[email protected]\;ruf=mailto:[email protected]\;adkim=s\;aspf=s"; > > A strict DMARC policy is appropriate for transactional emails from > systems which only ever mail to people, it's not appropriate for domains > with humans who send emails to mailing-lists. > > Coincidentally, I've been considering talking with the other list admins > for exim.org [Bcc'd] about whether we should accept the current trend to > have mailing-lists rewrite messages so that they appear to come "from" > the list, instead of from the original poster, for DMARC users. This is > horrible for various reasons, but with large mail providers pushing > DMARC, we now have a choice: > > 1. Rewrite mails a lot, breaking DKIM, for messages through @exim.org > 2. Block all messages from domains which publish DMARC policies. > > Option 2 is the quick fix, but James has been helpful and I don't want > to block his mail. Yet, if he sends enough mail to exim-users, other > subscribers risk being automatically unsubscribed by mailman when > Gmail/Yahoo/etc reject enough of his mail and they're deemed to be > "bouncing addresses". > > Option 1 basically means that we're committing to implementing DKIM > signing on exim.org itself, not necessarily a bad thing. > > I wrote the mailman patch for option 2 a few years back, which some > other lists deployed. Since that time, various "not utterly horrible" > solutions for Option 1 have become available. > > _Because_ new subscribers to exim-users are moderated by default, I'm > not slapping Option 2 in place immediately as a stop-gap; any current > subscribers could thus abuse the setup and cause mass unsubscriptions. > If anyone does that, we'll have to clean up afterwards and issue formal > complaints. I _think_ we'll be okay for the moment. > > -Phil > -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
