Re: ADMIN: Some mail addresses are now rewritten (was: Test mail from Outlook)

[antony]

On March 11, 2017 12:27:25 PM EST, Werner Koch  wrote:

>The reason for this is that some mail sites now have a DMARC reject
>policy which leads to a bounce for all subscribers whose mail provider
>honors this DMARC policy - for example gmail.  After a few bounces
>message delivery to those subscribers will blocked by our Mailman.

I noticed I was having issues with mail from mailing lists when I specified a 
DMARC reject policy for my domain, so I ended up changing it to unspecified for 
the time being to allow the receiver to decide how to deal with a DMARC 
failure. Not ideal, but DMARC (and DKIM signing for that matter) and mailing 
lists don't play nice together.


-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

ADMIN: Some mail addresses are now rewritten (was: Test mail from Outlook)

[Werner Koch]

Hi!

You may have noted that the From address has been rewritten to show the
list address instead of your address.  In addition a reply-to header has
been set so that your address is also known. 

The reason for this is that some mail sites now have a DMARC reject
policy which leads to a bounce for all subscribers whose mail provider
honors this DMARC policy - for example gmail.  After a few bounces
message delivery to those subscribers will blocked by our Mailman.

I have meanwhile unblocked all those addresses but the mails since
Thursday or Friday have not been delivered to the affected accounts.

The mitigation is to either use the list address as From: address or a
modify the From: address to make it invalid (e.g. append the reserved
domain "invalid").  Mailman offers the first option and that is what is
now in use for every poster which an address where a reject policy is
is advertised.

The problem with this rewriting is that it breaks quoting.  For example
here is how I would have replied to Jeff's test mail:

  On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 15:02, gnupg-users@gnupg.org said:
  
  > Just a simple test message as asked by Werner to test something…
  
  Thank you.

Thus I think marking the address invalid would have been a better choice
for Mailman - but there is no option for this yet.


Salam-Shalom,

   Werner


-- 
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.


pgpreAQXmHFgM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users