On 05/12/2014 01:25 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
How about multipart/alternative:
message header
multipart/alternative
part header
message/rfc822# original message in all its glory
part header
traditional cooked list message
Mark Sapiro writes:
On 05/12/2014 01:25 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
How about multipart/alternative:
message header
multipart/alternative
part header
message/rfc822# original message in all its glory
part header
On Thu, 2014-05-08 at 15:42 -0400, Glenn Sieb wrote:
If I felt what my users were asking for was unreasonable, I wouldn't
have bothered to bring it here. They'd *like* to see who's posting so if
they *choose* to reply privately they can. In the past, this was easy
enough. The From: line was
Lindsay Haisley writes:
What goes into an address comment is, or should be, purely
informational on a human level, and ignored on a computational
level.
Unfortunately, we can't depend on that:
There are a few possible mechanisms that attempt mitigation of
[display name] attacks,
On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 04:01 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Lindsay Haisley writes:
What goes into an address comment is, or should be, purely
informational on a human level, and ignored on a computational
level.
Unfortunately, we can't depend on that:
The operational term is or
Arguably, the correct response to DMARC filtering _should_ be the MIME
encapsulation of list mail, with appropriate RFC 2369 headers added to
the enclosing MIME structure leaving the content un-munged, with all
information from the original poster intact. Arguably, MUAs should be
transparent to
On 5/9/14, 10:13 PM, John Levine wrote:
Arguably, the correct response to DMARC filtering _should_ be the MIME
encapsulation of list mail, with appropriate RFC 2369 headers added to
the enclosing MIME structure leaving the content un-munged, with all
information from the original poster
Lindsay Haisley writes:
A nice fix, albeit probably total pie-in-the-sky, would be the
establishment of a MIME Content-Type: multipart/list-post, a variation
on (or extension of) mulpart/mixed. MUAs SHOULD (in the RFC 2119 sense)
effectively hide the outermost enclosing MIME envelope
Richard Damon writes:
On 5/9/14, 10:13 PM, John Levine wrote:
The correct response is either for senders to stop publishing DMARC
policies that don't match the way their users use mail (fat chance),
or for recipient systems to skip the DMARC checks on mail from sources
that are
On 05/09/2014 07:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
But the wrapped message could pass the DMARC DKIM signature check, if it
will exactly matchs the message that came from Yahoo/AOL. (which the
phish won't). This says that the List Headers, modified subject, list
headers and footers should be added
Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote:
Honestly, they (one of the principal DMARC spec authors works for
Yahoo) ignored their own advice, imagine how well that would go
over in some other industries.
Let's not overlook Agari, which has a financial stake in offering a
solution
Joseph Brennan writes:
Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote:
Honestly, they (one of the principal DMARC spec authors works for
Yahoo) ignored their own advice, imagine how well that would go
over in some other industries.
I didn't write that, and I dissent from the
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote:
Joseph Brennan writes:
Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote:
Honestly, they (one of the principal DMARC spec authors works for
Yahoo) ignored their own advice, imagine how well that would
It is not necessary to cc: me. I get list emails. Emails can go to the
list, unless you wish to take something private. Thank you.
On 5/7/14, 10:36 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
If you just want to vent, please say so. I thought you were asking
for help.
Then please work on your phrasing.
On 05/08/2014 12:42 PM, Glenn Sieb wrote:
In the past, this was easy
enough. The From: line was there with the OP's email address. Now, as
far as I can tell, depending on the MUA the *poster* uses, there *might*
be two Reply-Tos--one with the OP email, one with the list address. But
that's
Glenn Sieb writes:
Then please work on your phrasing.
That times time and effort, which I will start saving right now.
--
Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ:
On 5/7/14, 12:08 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
What is the intent of the restriction? Are you trying to get the
users to use reply to author by punishing them with a black hole if
they don't, and then set Reply-To to list-post so that nobody ever
gets a personal reply? Or is this intended
On 05/07/2014 12:45 PM, Glenn Sieb wrote:
It's ridiculous. And I want to know why, exactly, Yahoo Groups isn't
being affected by this. They're not doing the via YahooGroup bit, or
wrapping their mails. :-\ I'm betting they're not even honoring the
DMARC from other providers.
Yahoo groups
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Mark Sapiro m...@msapiro.net wrote:
We are trying to talk with DMARC proponents,
You won't be successful until those people themselves figure out what
they are doing (and then they agree to quit using the Internet as a
testbed) :-) Honestly, they (one of the
Glenn Sieb writes:
What my list owners want out of my lists, and what rules they
decide on for their lists, is not my business. By extension, it is
not yours.
If you just want to vent, please say so. I thought you were asking
for help.
If you want help, then the questions I asked are
Jim Popovitch writes:
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Mark Sapiro m...@msapiro.net wrote:
We are trying to talk with DMARC proponents,
You won't be successful until those people themselves figure out what
they are doing
That's true, but those folks (or, more accurately, their bosses)
Greetings...
So I run a bunch of mailing lists, with a bunch of people who are not
technically adept whatsoever. (I am not getting list posts! That's
because you set yourself to no mail What's no mail? It means you set
yourself to be a member of the list, but not to get any email from it.
Oh
On 05/06/2014 12:47 PM, Glenn Sieb wrote:
So I updated to 2.1.18-1 today. Now we have a Reply-To that has the
poster's email and the list's email address.
A few of the lists I run block emails with more than one recipient,
Do you mean Privacy options... - Recipient filters -
On 5/6/14, 4:29 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
Do you mean Privacy options... - Recipient filters -
max_num_recipients = 2
If so, ouch, but what do you do now when people reply-all to posts.
Don't those replies get held?
Indeed. They get rejected. Policy on a couple particular lists. No cc's,
no
On 05/06/2014 02:17 PM, Glenn Sieb wrote:
Fair enough. So, basically I'm fsck'd. Set the lists to be
anonymous_list or set an explicit reply-to to be the lists and hope
that strips out the extraneous reply-to entry.
I went back and forth with this. Initially, if first_strip_reply_to was
Yes
On 5/6/14, 5:31 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
I went back and forth with this. Initially, if first_strip_reply_to was
Yes and reply_goes_to_list was This list or Explicit address, I didn't
put the poster's address in Reply-To:
I finally decided it was of overriding importance to expose the posters
On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 14:31 -0700, Mark Sapiro wrote:
I am willing to consider changing this, either to treat Reply-To:
differently for Wrap Message since the original headers are in the
wrapped message in that case, or to just go back to not adding the
poster's address to Reply-To: as in my
On 05/06/2014 02:36 PM, Glenn Sieb wrote:
On 5/6/14, 5:31 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
I could always add yet another setting, but I hate that idea for
multiple reasons.
Can there be an option somewhere in between anonymous_list and
reply_goes_to_list? One where it can strip the poster's email
Is the existing change (making sure the poster's address is in the
reply-to) available in a patch? I checked launchpad but if it's there I
couldn't find it. I'd like to see if I can apply it to 2.1.17 while waiting
for cPanel to upgrade to 2.1.18.
FWIW, I'd vote against a rollback to the earlier
On 05/06/2014 02:52 PM, Russell Clemings wrote:
Is the existing change (making sure the poster's address is in the
reply-to) available in a patch? I checked launchpad but if it's there I
couldn't find it. I'd like to see if I can apply it to 2.1.17 while
waiting for cPanel to upgrade to
On May 06, 2014, at 05:17 PM, Glenn Sieb wrote:
Fair enough. So, basically I'm fsck'd. Set the lists to be
anonymous_list or set an explicit reply-to to be the lists and hope
that strips out the extraneous reply-to entry.
Yes, and sadly it's forced on us by external policies.
I must admit that
Glenn Sieb writes:
So I updated to 2.1.18-1 today. Now we have a Reply-To that has the
poster's email and the list's email address.
A few of the lists I run block emails with more than one recipient, so
now this is going to be an adventure. (Ok, more like a nightmare, as
right now it
32 matches
Mail list logo
