Re: Fixing the LUV list?

[Chris Samuel via luv-main]

On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 04:04:45 PM Anders Holmström via luv-main wrote:

> As mentioned it was on luv-talk.

That's fine for changes to luv-talk, but IMHO changes to luv-main should have 
been discussed on luv-main, where the actual subscribers are.

Thanks for the clarification, I went back and realised I'd misread Craig's 
email, I though he'd said it was discussed here but he was referring to the 
changes happening to luv-talk first and then luv-main.

-- 
 Chris Samuel  :  http://www.csamuel.org/  :  Melbourne, VIC

___
luv-main mailing list
luv-main@luv.asn.au
http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main

Re: Fixing the LUV list?

[Anders Holmström via luv-main]

On 2015-12-21 09:35, Chris Samuel via luv-main wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 04:04:45 PM Anders Holmström via luv-main wrote:


As mentioned it was on luv-talk.


That's fine for changes to luv-talk, but IMHO changes to luv-main should have
been discussed on luv-main, where the actual subscribers are.

Thanks for the clarification, I went back and realised I'd misread Craig's
email, I though he'd said it was discussed here but he was referring to the
changes happening to luv-talk first and then luv-main.


Agreed. To clarify further, it was not a case of "we want to change, 
let's discuss"; the change was implemented without prior discussion or 
announcement, just like on luv-main.


Anders
___
luv-main mailing list
luv-main@luv.asn.au
http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main

Re: Fixing the LUV list?

[Russell Coker via luv-main]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 07:41:35 PM Anders Holmström via luv-main wrote:
> Agreed. To clarify further, it was not a case of "we want to change, 
> let's discuss"; the change was implemented without prior discussion or 
> announcement, just like on luv-main.

I raised the issue for discussion on the committee list, but no-one there 
seemed to think it was a big deal.

I sent a message to luv-announce but that didn't get past the moderation 
system (sorry).

-- 
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Bloghttp://doc.coker.com.au/
___
luv-main mailing list
luv-main@luv.asn.au
http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main

Re: Fixing the LUV list?

[Brian May via luv-main]

Craig Sanders via luv-main  writes:

> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 04:04:45PM +0100, Anders Holmström via luv-main wrote:
>> As mentioned it was on luv-talk. As I recall there was no announcement; the
>> change was implemented without warning and /then/ there was some discussion.
>
> By "announcement", i mean Russell said "I'm doing this" and gave his reasons.
>
> given that he's the list admin, that counts as an announcement to me, 
> regardless
> of the fact that i disagree with both his decision and his reasons.

... except people only subscribed to luv-main and not luv-talk won't
have seen his accouncement.
-- 
Brian May 
https://linuxpenguins.xyz/brian/
___
luv-main mailing list
luv-main@luv.asn.au
http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main

Re: Fixing the LUV list?

[Craig Sanders via luv-main]

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 04:04:45PM +0100, Anders Holmström via luv-main wrote:
> As mentioned it was on luv-talk. As I recall there was no announcement; the
> change was implemented without warning and /then/ there was some discussion.

By "announcement", i mean Russell said "I'm doing this" and gave his reasons.

given that he's the list admin, that counts as an announcement to me, regardless
of the fact that i disagree with both his decision and his reasons.

craig

-- 
craig sanders 
___
luv-main mailing list
luv-main@luv.asn.au
http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main

Re: Fixing the LUV list?

[Erik Christiansen via luv-main]

On 20.12.15 11:39, Brian May via luv-main wrote:
> Craig Sanders via luv-main  writes:
> 
> > On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 04:04:45PM +0100, Anders Holmström via luv-main 
> > wrote:
> >> As mentioned it was on luv-talk. As I recall there was no announcement; the
> >> change was implemented without warning and /then/ there was some 
> >> discussion.
> >
> > By "announcement", i mean Russell said "I'm doing this" and gave his 
> > reasons.
> >
> > given that he's the list admin, that counts as an announcement to me, 
> > regardless
> > of the fact that i disagree with both his decision and his reasons.
> 
> ... except people only subscribed to luv-main and not luv-talk won't
> have seen his accouncement.

Prezactly. (Thus secreted/hidden, by any reasonable measure.)

A small procmail rule will undo the munge on receipt, though, so I
guess it is actually no biggie if the munge isn't rectified at source.
(It does seem broken, though, for the mailserver to have to set both
sender and envelope-sender, for any reason. If a hack is needed, do it
in the latter, for heaven's sake. Or add yet another header - they're
cheap.)

Erik
___
luv-main mailing list
luv-main@luv.asn.au
http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main

Re: Fixing the LUV list?

[Anders Holmström via luv-main]

On 2015-12-19 14:48, Chris Samuel via luv-main wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 05:05:39 PM Craig Sanders via luv-main wrote:


it wasn't exactly a discussion, either.  an announcement was
made and a few people (including myself) objected.


It was?   When was that?


As mentioned it was on luv-talk. As I recall there was no announcement; 
the change was implemented without warning and /then/ there was some 
discussion.


Anders
___
luv-main mailing list
luv-main@luv.asn.au
http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main

Re: Fixing the LUV list?

[Craig Sanders via luv-main]

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 04:18:37PM +1100, Erik Christiansen via luv-main wrote:

> And I concur, holding secret discussions on another list is not an
> acceptable substitute to addressing this list's problems here.

they weren't secret discussions.  luv-talk is a public list, and 
the changes were made to that list first, and then on luv-main.


it wasn't exactly a discussion, either.  an announcement was
made and a few people (including myself) objected.

craig

-- 
craig sanders 
___
luv-main mailing list
luv-main@luv.asn.au
http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main

Re: Fixing the LUV list?

[Erik Christiansen via luv-main]

On 05.12.15 12:57, Brian May via luv-main wrote:
> Chris Samuel via luv-main  writes:
> 
> > I tried emailing the committee, but that just got moderated and I've not 
> > heard 
> > anything since, so I was wondering are was any progress on fix the LUV 
> > mailing 
> > list to not rewrite the From: header?
> 
> First you need to convince the list administor to change it back. There
> was a long discussion on luv-talk (something like this should have been
> discussed on luv-main IMHO) you may have missed, see the first messsage:

Is there any progress on this problem? It is bloody annoying that it has
screwed up thread identification in mutt. To wit; the pattern ~(~P)
works on every list but this one, now.

And I concur, holding secret discussions on another list is not an
acceptable substitute to addressing this list's problems here.

Erik
___
luv-main mailing list
luv-main@luv.asn.au
http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main

Fixing the LUV list?

[Chris Samuel via luv-main]

Hi folks,

I tried emailing the committee, but that just got moderated and I've not heard 
anything since, so I was wondering are was any progress on fix the LUV mailing 
list to not rewrite the From: header?

thanks,
Chris
-- 
 Chris Samuel  :  http://www.csamuel.org/  :  Melbourne, VIC

___
luv-main mailing list
luv-main@luv.asn.au
http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main

Re: Fixing the LUV list?

[Brian May via luv-main]

Chris Samuel via luv-main  writes:

> I tried emailing the committee, but that just got moderated and I've not 
> heard 
> anything since, so I was wondering are was any progress on fix the LUV 
> mailing 
> list to not rewrite the From: header?

First you need to convince the list administor to change it back. There
was a long discussion on luv-talk (something like this should have been
discussed on luv-main IMHO) you may have missed, see the first messsage:

http://lists.luv.asn.au/pipermail/luv-talk/2015-November/003584.html

Basically rewriting the address is required so us not to break DKIM and
DMARC.

(not just rewriting From: header, also rewriting Reply-To: which has
upset some people here too)
-- 
Brian May 
https://linuxpenguins.xyz/brian/
___
luv-main mailing list
luv-main@luv.asn.au
http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main

Re: Fixing the LUV list?

[Chris Samuel via luv-main]

On Sat, 5 Dec 2015 12:57:23 PM Brian May via luv-main wrote:

> First you need to convince the list administor to change it back.

This is the *only* email list I'm that has this crazy setup. I can't believe 
it's required.  Even the Beowulf list that I run, with over 1,500 members, 
doesn't need it.

> There was a long discussion on luv-talk

Wrong place to discuss it, IMHO.

-- 
 Chris Samuel  :  http://www.csamuel.org/  :  Melbourne, VIC

___
luv-main mailing list
luv-main@luv.asn.au
http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main

Re: Fixing the LUV list?

[Joel W. Shea via luv-main]

On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 12:57:23PM +1100, Brian May via luv-main wrote:
> 
> First you need to convince the list administor to change it back.
> There was a long discussion on luv-talk (something like this should
> have been discussed on luv-main IMHO) you may have missed, see the
> first messsage:
> 
> http://lists.luv.asn.au/pipermail/luv-talk/2015-November/003584.html

In that thread, I have attempted to convince the list administrator to
use dmarc_moderation_action *instead of* from_is_list, as recommended by
the Mailman documentation; effectively only rewriting the "From:" field
where necessary, and I believe that's an acceptable compromise to many
more people than the current solution. 

> Basically rewriting the address is required so us not to break DKIM
> and DMARC.

Only where the message has been sent from a domain with a restrictive
DMARC policy like dmarc_moderation_action does; not every single
message, as from_is_list does.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
luv-main mailing list
luv-main@luv.asn.au
http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main

Re: Fixing the LUV list?

[Craig Sanders via luv-main]

On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 04:34:40PM +1100, Joel W. Shea via luv-main wrote:
> > http://lists.luv.asn.au/pipermail/luv-talk/2015-November/003584.html
> 
> In that thread, I have attempted to convince the list administrator to
> use dmarc_moderation_action *instead of* from_is_list, as recommended by
> the Mailman documentation; effectively only rewriting the "From:" field
> where necessary, and I believe that's an acceptable compromise to many
> more people than the current solution. 

that's a not-unreasonable compromise. it only mangles messages where
the alternative would be to have it bounce or be discardedand, most
importantly, doesn't munge other messages where DMARC is not an issue.


> Only where the message has been sent from a domain with a restrictive
> DMARC policy like dmarc_moderation_action does; not every single
> message, as from_is_list does.

i'm in favour of it, as a compromise.  i'd prefer not to mangle
mail just to pander to giant corporations broken non-standards,
but at least dmarc_moderation_action seems to do minimal damage.

craig

-- 
craig sanders 
___
luv-main mailing list
luv-main@luv.asn.au
http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main