Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

developers@python.org > Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs > > Barry Warsaw writes: > > On Oct 29, 2011, at 06:39 AM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote: > > > > >I suggest we use the term 'Mediator' as introduced by D. Crocker in &

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

Hello Ian, Sorry I am a bit late in responding but with our Thanksgiving holiday and me taking a few days of vacation I was away from email. I understand what you are saying in your message but I think you possibly missed my point. Given the definitions previously proposed for the "Mediator" hea

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

On 16 Nov 2011, at 16:10, C Nulk wrote: > > I can't help but consider the rash of useless Mediator headers. > Consider the following example: > > Person 1 sends a message to a list which is then sent to Person 2. > Person 1's site has separate appliances for the MTA, Spam checking, > Anti-Virus

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

On 11/15/2011 6:52 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 29, 2011, at 06:39 AM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote: > >> I suggest we use the term 'Mediator' as introduced by D. Crocker in RFC 5598 >> instead: >> >> A Mediator attempts to preserve the original

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs > > That's pretty interesting. Currently MM3 doesn't add any Received > headers, but this bug tracks that: > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/mailman/+bug/885715 Excellent. The draft is now posted: http://dat

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

Barry Warsaw writes: > On Oct 29, 2011, at 06:39 AM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote: > > >I suggest we use the term 'Mediator' as introduced by D. Crocker in RFC 5598 > > instead: [...] > > That makes a good case for Mediator. +1, but only for the

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

On Oct 29, 2011, at 06:39 AM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote: >I suggest we use the term 'Mediator' as introduced by D. Crocker in RFC 5598 > instead: > > A Mediator attempts to preserve the original Author's information in > the message it reformulat

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

On Oct 28, 2011, at 11:45 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >I've got a separate draft that adds to Received: fields a tag that indicates >transitions of messages into administrative hold states (quarantining, timed >delivery and list moderation are included in the initial list of reasons) >ready to

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

Ian Eiloart writes: > Good point. I'd argue that the list manager, and the archiver > should simply do that: put a received header into the message at > the appropriate point. That would make it much easier to track the > message progress. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not that'

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

On 29 Oct 2011, at 05:39, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote: > > I suggest we use the term 'Mediator' as introduced by D. Crocker in RFC 5598 > instead: > > A Mediator attempts to preserve the original Author's information in > the message it reformu

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

On 29 Oct 2011, at 05:39, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote: > List-Archive-Send-Date >'List-Archive-Send-Date' sounds pretty clumsy and overly long. OTOH we >needn't care, as it will only be added to messages that go to the >archive, right? > > Archive-Transmit-Date, Archive-Tra

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

On 29 Oct 2011, at 05:39, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote: >> Hmm, adopting a hash-tags format here would be kind of interesting for >> interop >> with social networking sites. It wouldn't have to be reflected in the name >> of > > ACK with the notion that hashtag seems to closely realted with twit

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs > > >> >This also looks like a candidate for, say, a List-Approved-Date > >> >header. > > > >It's not available in RFC 2369. We will have to propose 'List-Approved-Date' > >as a ne

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

* Barry Warsaw : > On Oct 28, 2011, at 10:36 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote: > > >> >> From Mailman/Handlers/CookHeaders.py: > >> >> > >> >>msg['X-Mailman-Version'] = mm_cfg.VERSION > >> >> > >> >> Seems to add the product version and not the User-Agent. > >> > > >> >Yes, but a User-Agent

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

On 10/28/11 8:42 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: Barry Warsaw writes: > I think it makes sense to have a header identifying the MLM that the message > flowed through, and List-Agent seems like a good choice. Are lists the only agents that forward-with-changes? (Obviously MTAs forward, an

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

Barry Warsaw writes: > I think it makes sense to have a header identifying the MLM that the message > flowed through, and List-Agent seems like a good choice. Are lists the only agents that forward-with-changes? (Obviously MTAs forward, and they do in fact make changes to the headers, but thos

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

On Oct 28, 2011, at 10:36 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote: >> >> From Mailman/Handlers/CookHeaders.py: >> >> >> >>msg['X-Mailman-Version'] = mm_cfg.VERSION >> >> >> >> Seems to add the product version and not the User-Agent. >> > >> >Yes, but a User-Agent, header would have the product and

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

I've begun to sort the various comments into a list that sorts all changes in categories like 'decide', 'delete', 'modify', 'keep'. I will send it to mailman-developers@python.org once I've clarified a few header fields. As a reference I looked for existing list-relevant header fields in RFC 2369

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

On 13 Oct 2011, at 16:30, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > For Mailman, I think we'd like to, and would generally be able to be more > DKIM-friendly, if we actually knew what to do. Short of not modifying the > incoming message at all, and absent clear guidelines in this or any other RFC, > we're just f

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

On Oct 27, 2011, at 02:29 PM, Ian Eiloart wrote: >The message that I'm replying to carried this header: >X-Beenthere: mailman-developers@python.org Note that I responded in the context of Mailman 3. We have an opportunity there to clean that all up, but it probably isn't a good idea to radical

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

On 25 Oct 2011, at 17:13, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Murray S. Kucherawy writes: > >> What it says is the list should re-sign if it modifies the message >> (or, in general, re-sign anyway). So append whatever you want, >> just re-sign the message. Are you insisting that advice is >> defectiv

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

Mark Sapiro writes: > SMTPD32. You'd have to ask ipswitch if you want to know what it means, > but it appears to duplicate the To: header. I would guess that it actually copies the envelope recipient. ___ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Deve

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

On 10/27/2011 7:29 AM, Ian Eiloart wrote: > > On 26 Oct 2011, at 16:33, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote: >> [...] > The message that I'm replying to carried this header: > X-Beenthere: mailman-developers@python.org > > I guess that should stay, then. Unless we find a different place to put it. > Mo

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

On 26 Oct 2011, at 16:33, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote: > I searched mailman 2.1.14 sources and changelog to find out what they stand > for. Read below. Which could/should we replace with already existing > standardized headers? > > * Ian Eiloart : >> On 25 Oct 2011, at 02:04, Barry Warsaw wrote: >

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

I searched mailman 2.1.14 sources and changelog to find out what they stand for. Read below. Which could/should we replace with already existing standardized headers? * Ian Eiloart : > On 25 Oct 2011, at 02:04, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > > On Oct 13, 2011, at 11:41 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

On 10/26/2011 5:43 AM, Ian Eiloart wrote: > On 25 Oct 2011, at 02:04, Barry Warsaw wrote: > >> On Oct 13, 2011, at 11:41 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> >>> There's movement afoot to deprecate use of "X-" in header field names. Just >>> call it "Mailman-Topic". And if it's worthwhile, consider

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

On 25 Oct 2011, at 02:04, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 13, 2011, at 11:41 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >> There's movement afoot to deprecate use of "X-" in header field names. Just >> call it "Mailman-Topic". And if it's worthwhile, consider registering it >> with IANA. > > I wonder if w

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

On 10/25/2011 2:47 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: Joshua Cranmer writes: > On 10/24/2011 8:04 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > On Oct 13, 2011, at 11:41 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >> There's movement afoot to deprecate use of "X-" in header field > >> names. Just call it "Mailma

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

Murray S. Kucherawy writes: > What it says is the list should re-sign if it modifies the message > (or, in general, re-sign anyway). So append whatever you want, > just re-sign the message. Are you insisting that advice is > defective? Defective, maybe not. But I don't think I would follow

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs > > > Well, I also don't agree with characterizing this as a defect in the > > DKIM RFC. > > I would consider an RFC that tells some people they need to violate the > laws of their country to follow it to have

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

On 10/25/11 6:00 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: -Original Message- From: Stephen J. Turnbull [mailto:step...@xemacs.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 2:50 AM To: Murray S. Kucherawy Cc: mailman-developers@python.org Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs I

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

developers@python.org > Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs > > Patrick Ben Koetter writes: > > > Is it possible to register a prefix (namespace) such as mailman-. Anything > > below would be mailman related. Stupid idea? > > Very pla

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

Patrick Ben Koetter writes: > Is it possible to register a prefix (namespace) such as mailman-. Anything > below would be mailman related. Stupid idea? Very plausible, but I suspect there are good reasons not to allow it in the RFC 822/1036 messaging series. In any case, no, it's not possible.

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

* Stephen J. Turnbull : > Joshua Cranmer writes: > > On 10/24/2011 8:04 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > > On Oct 13, 2011, at 11:41 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > > >> There's movement afoot to deprecate use of "X-" in header field > > >> names. Just call it "Mailman-Topic". And if it's wort

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

> -Original Message- > From: Stephen J. Turnbull [mailto:step...@xemacs.org] > Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 2:50 AM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: mailman-developers@python.org > Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs > > I agree,

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

Murray S. Kucherawy writes: > I don't have a reality suspension field in effect on this topic. I > was simply disputing the claim that complying with the > List-Unsubscribe RFC constitutes "hiding" of those details. It's not deliberate, let alone malicious, but it does conceal the details fro

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

> -Original Message- > From: Stephen J. Turnbull [mailto:step...@xemacs.org] > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 10:38 AM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: Ian Eiloart; mailman-developers@python.org > Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs > >

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

Joshua Cranmer writes: > On 10/24/2011 8:04 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > On Oct 13, 2011, at 11:41 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >> There's movement afoot to deprecate use of "X-" in header field > >> names. Just call it "Mailman-Topic". And if it's worthwhile, > >> consider registering i

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

On 10/24/2011 8:04 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: On Oct 13, 2011, at 11:41 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: There's movement afoot to deprecate use of "X-" in header field names. Just call it "Mailman-Topic". And if it's worthwhile, consider registering it with IANA. I wonder if we should remove the

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

On Oct 13, 2011, at 11:41 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >There's movement afoot to deprecate use of "X-" in header field names. Just >call it "Mailman-Topic". And if it's worthwhile, consider registering it >with IANA. I wonder if we should remove the X- prefixes for Mailman 3. Here's a list

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

Murray S. Kucherawy writes: > My point is that if using header fields is the right way to encode > this information in a protocol sense, then the issue is really that > the MUAs need to expose that information somehow. The success of the IETF RFC process is due to the fact that protocol is bui

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

On 10/24/11 10:31 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: -Original Message- From: Ian Eiloart [mailto:i...@sussex.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 7:24 AM To: Murray S. Kucherawy Cc: mailman-developers@python.org Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs Isn&#

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

> -Original Message- > From: Ian Eiloart [mailto:i...@sussex.ac.uk] > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 7:24 AM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: mailman-developers@python.org > Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs > > > Isn't "

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

On 24 Oct 2011, at 15:02, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Ian Eiloart [mailto:i...@sussex.ac.uk] >> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 7:00 AM >> To: Murray S. Kucherawy >> Cc: mailman-developers@python.org >> Subject: Re: [Mailm

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

> -Original Message- > From: Ian Eiloart [mailto:i...@sussex.ac.uk] > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 7:00 AM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: mailman-developers@python.org > Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs > > Of course, that

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

On 13 Oct 2011, at 19:21, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > The document does point out that the "friendly" approach is to put stuff like > URLs for querying archives and unsubscription instructions up in the header > using the List-* fields specified in RFC2919 and RFC2369 rather than as body >

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

> -Original Message- > From: Stephen J. Turnbull [mailto:step...@xemacs.org] > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 6:49 PM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: mailman-developers@python.org > Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs > > That'

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

Murray S. Kucherawy writes: > Essentially to be "DKIM-friendly" you're free to make any changes > you want to the message so long as they are confined to those parts > of the message not "covered" by the DKIM signature. So if a > signature doesn't cover Subject:, you're fine. Obviously there

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

> -Original Message- > From: Barry Warsaw [mailto:ba...@list.org] > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 8:30 AM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: mailman-developers@python.org > Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs > > For Mailman, I think

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

On Oct 12, 2011, at 02:46 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >The IETF recently issued an RFC, with BCP status, regarding interaction >between DKIM and MLMs. It seems like this community might be interested. > >http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6377.txt > >Long ago I mentioned on this list that the IETF was

[Mailman-Developers] New RFC on using DKIM with MLMs

Hi all, The IETF recently issued an RFC, with BCP status, regarding interaction between DKIM and MLMs. It seems like this community might be interested. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6377.txt Long ago I mentioned on this list that the IETF was undertaking this effort; this is the final product.