Most likely the reasoning behind something like this is dkim replay attacks, where a message with a single recipient is re-sent to a large number of recipients.
Of course mailing lists should be exempted, the challenge is if you reply to both the list and the person directly, the reply to the person didn't go through the list and can't be easily exempted. Oh, and you have to be careful how you make the exemption since you don't want the dkim reply spammers to figure it out and exempt themselves, there isn't a registry of legitimate mailing lists. Obviously if this is affecting a large number of folks as false positives, it could use some tuning... but I think the set of rules like this started years ago at this point, but new rules and tuning and just the general dynamics of the system will change the performance and effect. As for preferencing Google Groups, at least when I was on the team, Google Groups went in through the same smtp-in door as any other mail, and was treated the same as any other mail... in general, the only differences there was that it is a known mailing list host and as a large one had some special handling to differentiate between different groups... and this same type of thing was used for most of the large mailing list operators that the team was aware of. Open source mailing lists were also usually handled specially where possible, definitely out of proportion to their actual mail volume or affected users. At the time, debian mailing lists were also specially handled due to their poor email hygiene practices, in particular their opposition to using SPF because they didn't want to run a central MSA for people to use their debian.org email addresses. The issue with any special handling is that it adds tech debt to the system, makes it more complicated, and the handling can become out of date over time... I don't know if debian has started using SPF (a quick look says no), or if they don't, whether the system still has any special handling for them, since removing that special handling or having it break probably wouldn't move the needle on any metrics for the system as a whole. I wouldn't be surprised if we still have yahooogroups.com listed as a large scale mailing list system... even though it's gone.... or if groups.io is listed since it's probably grown large enough that it could be. Brandon On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 6:04 AM Benny Pedersen via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop skrev den 2024-03-17 13:38: > > Dnia 16.03.2024 o godz. 13:08:52 Benny Pedersen via mailop pisze: > >> > >> bingo its why its tempfailed, gmail should redesign how to handle > >> maillists where message-id can come to inbound on gmail, should not > >> count on message-id abuse counts > > > > Well... from Google's point of view, it seems like a pretty effective > > mechanism to force people to move to *their* mailing list service, > > instead > > of running mailing list themselves... > > > > A monopoly wants to be a monopoly. > > sure any stupid user can forward mails that is received on maillist to > there own private gmail account, more or less its this > > stop forwarding mails as maillist subscriber is better, in generic world > is lots better when no mail is forwarded > > srs would not fix anything anyway > > setup forwarder with sasl client in mta to delivery to freemail provider > solves it > > > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop >
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
