On Thu, 2014-04-17 at 20:46 +0100, Jonathan H wrote: > I'm totally lost; I appear to be missing the rest of the thread. > > Is it related to this? http://www.virusbtn.com/blog/2014/04_15.xml
Basically, Yahoo! have just broken their own email setup for mailing lists. They no longer accept messages with 'From: [email protected]' coming from elsewhere. Like mailing list servers. Which is how fairly much *all* mailing lists behave, when a Yahoo subscriber sends mail to the list > Now, this list is setup in a quite (ahem) "unique" way; I wonder if > that might be triggering spam filters? No, this list is perfectly normal. Especially with regard to the 'From' header. > For example, every single one of the other roughly 25 mailing lists > has headers in the form of: > > from:[email protected] > reply-to: [email protected] > to: [email protected] See? The 'From:' header there was also the original sender of the message, right? And would also be broken by Yahoo's recent brain damage. > but this list has: > > from: David Woodhouse <[email protected]> > to: Chris J Brady <[email protected]> > cc: get_iplayer <[email protected]> The To: and Cc: are entirely interchangeable; that's purely cosmetic. You can send To the list or Cc the list as you see fit, and it really doesn't make any difference. > (As anyone who's ever replied, you'll know it plays havoc and requires > a fair amount of farting around with > I've not idea why it's like this, but David's list, David's rules I suppose.) Why on earth would you have to do anything other than just hit 'reply to all'? I think you're confused and think that it's acceptable to reply *only* to the list, and rudely strip other participants from Cc. I recommend reading http://david.woodhou.se/reply-to-list.html to correct that misconception. (Redux: Either choice inconveniences some people but replying only to the list is *more* of a problem and could cut people out of the discussion entirely, so don't do that. Keeping people in Cc when they don't need it is a trivial cosmetic inconvenience for them at worst.) But that's orthogonal to the Yahoo brokenness. > In what way is Yahoo in particular "broken" in this case, though? As > far as I can see, they are simply enforcing something which is 10 > years overdue and much needed - ie: no sender spoofing and a valid, > signed, authenticated email. What you describe is not "email". That isn't how email works. The list sends messages with a reverse-path of [email protected], which is not spoofed. The From: header is also correct according to the standards since it identifies the *author* of the email. Yahoo is, as I said, simply broken. Like other list managers who don't care about pandering to stupidity, I'll probably just put a filter on so that the lists automatically reject messages from yahoo.com addresses. Here's a nickel, kid. Get a proper email account. -- dwmw2
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ get_iplayer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
