I wonder why then I got a bunch of issues with btopenworld.com, which apparently is Yahoo based. I just checked btopenworld.com with the ‘host’ command and as you say, it has no ‘reject’:
$ host -t TXT _dmarc.btopenworld.com _dmarc.btopenworld.com descriptive text "v=DMARC1\; p=none\; fo=1\; rua=mailto:dmarc...@btinternet.com, mailto:dmarc_...@auth.returnpath.net\;"; $ host -t TXT _dmarc.yahoo.com _dmarc.yahoo.com descriptive text "v=DMARC1\; p=reject\; sp=none\; pct=100\; rua=mailto:dmarc-yahoo-...@yahoo-inc.com, mailto:dmarc_y_...@yahoo.com\;” Here is the reject notice: Final-Recipient: rfc822; subscri...@aol.com Original-Recipient: rfc822;subscri...@aol.com Action: failed Status: 5.2.1 Remote-MTA: dns; mailin-04.mx.aol.com Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 521 5.2.1 : AOL will not accept delivery of this message. Date: May 13, 2015 at 07:52:17 PDT From: <sen...@btopenworld.com> To: <list address> Subject: subject Reply-To: sen...@btopenworld.com And yes, as I just wrote, I have good reasons for keeping this as simple as I possibly can. Upgrading is not simple, I suspect, though I’d love to move to 3.0, as I have a lot of lists, with subscribers on many lists simulteneously. Yours, Allan > On May 24, 2015, at 11:14 , Stephen J. Turnbull <step...@xemacs.org> wrote: > > Allan Hansen writes: > >> Checking for aol.com and yahoo.com here alone will not work. I have >> a bunch of other subscribers that have accounts with providers >> that are owned by Yahoo (mostly) and AOL, but whose addresses are >> not of this form. > > Oddly enough, it turns out that they only use DMARC p=reject at their > principal domain (aol.com and yahoo.com). You can check for any given > domain by prepending _dmarc. and checking the TXT record. For > example, for aol.com it would be "host -t TXT _dmarc.aol.com" if you > have the host utility for doing DNS lookups. > >> I would have to do this for all addresses, to be safe. > > If you're worried about safety and care about conforming to standards, > you really should upgrade to at least Mailman 2.1.18-1. That allows > you to be nonconformant only for authors whose addresses are in > troublesome domains, and handles the reply-to issue as well as > possible (making everybody happy isn't quite possible). I'm sure you > have good reason for not doing so *right* *now*, but keep it in mind. > >> If I do this and add the bit about the Reply-To, what would the >> code look like? > > If you do it for all mail, you just delete the "if" line and shift > everything left one dedent. > > name, addr = parseaddr(msg.get('from')) > name = "%s (%s) via list" % (name if name else "Anonymous", addr) > fromaddr = mlist.GetListEmail() > del msg['from'] > msg['from'] = formataddr((name, addr)) > # reply-to handling goes here > > I'm not comfortable trying to say what to do about reply-to, because > it's quite complicated depending on how you want to handle each of a > large number of variations: what to do with a preexisting Reply-To and > whether to put the list and/or the from address there. See the > Mailman/Handlers/CookHeaders.py file in the Mailman distribution. > ------------------------------------------------------ Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
