On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 05:08:23PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 05:00:58 PM Craig Sanders via luv-main wrote: > If you believed that there was nothing you could do then you wouldn't > have spent months arguing.
i haven't. i've mostly ignored it for most of the last few months since you broke the list and only got sucked into it in the last few days because the thread's been going on for about a week. and my procmail rule partially unbreaks the list (except for the munged Reply-To: header which 1. is unfixable and 2. isn't used much by subscribers here AFAIK) > OK, please go tell Yahoo etc that they are doing it wrong. Let's > leave the list server in it's current configuration until you convince > Yahoo and Gmail of the error of their ways. if you intend to do nothing, then just say so - don't make up some bullshit impossible goal that "might" get you to unbreak the list. > Actually the Gmail users didn't do anything, they just signed up for > a mail service knowing nothing about DKIM or the Gmail actions that > would happen when they received DKIM signed mail via a list. it's really difficult to have much sympathy for the technical problems experienced by people who chose to use a spyware service run by a giant corporation. They CHOSE to have no control over their mail, they get to just suck it up and accept whatever problems that causes. They don't get to assume that their abdication of responsibility for their own email automatically entitle them to cause problems for others. > If they were so wrong then Gmail wouldn't implement DKIM/DMARC checks > on mail it receives. google has their own reasons for destroying independently run mailing lists. > > the mailman devs have obviously got it wrong. even they admit that > > their implementation is buggy and broken. > > What is buggy is the fact that they can't preserve headers and body > encoding. there's also the fact that mailman strips attachments and makes other changes to the message body which is going to invalidate any signing of the original msg. Look, the major problem with DMARC is that it uses the From: header. If it used the Sender: header instead (or used it IF it exists in the headers), then mailman could do the right thing by stripping attachments, changing the encoding, or whatever and declare that the list was the Sender: and DKIM sign it. > > you're assuming that there is such a way. IMO DMARC is > > broken-by-design so it's impossible to do it in any good or even > > reasonable way. > > > > in other words: the way i'd like is to not do it at all. i've said > > that repeatedly. > > It's OK to wish that Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail, Facebook, and other big > companies would do things differently. But your wishes aren't going > to change anything. Let's stick to discussing the reality of how to > deal with mail to/from such services. i didn't wish they did things differently, at least that's not the argument i'm making here. my attitude is that their unreasonable demands about changing the nature of email and mailing lists should be ignored, not surrendered/pandered to. craig -- craig sanders <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
