Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 2017-10-16 23:27, mailbox.org wrote: Thank you Steve! Now I understand it is not all bad. Just the way that AOIL and YAHOO went about it (or something like that). It's not bad, only it's mostly useless for human people like you and I. What good it does is mostly for google-person and

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/17/2017 10:55 AM, Christian F Buser via Mailman-Users wrote: I can perfectly follow your thoughts and arguments, they appear to be justified and reasonable. Thank you. I tried to make them so that people could understand, even if they choose to disagree. However, could you please

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

Hello Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users. On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:10:56 -0600, you wrote: > Some drive by comments: > ... I can perfectly follow your thoughts and arguments, they appear to be justified and reasonable. However, could you please elaborate whether Mailman (version 2.x or 3.x) or any

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/14/2017 02:07 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: For (2) to make sense, the email provider should have a policy that prohibits use of its mailboxes to post to mailing lists, and it must not provide "on behalf of" services such as sending photographs or newspaper articles using your address in

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/17/2017 11:10 AM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: >  - I *STRONGLY* feel that mailing lists / forwarders / etc are email > endpoints.  Many of them generate new messages with content based on the > incoming content.  -  Thus it is perfectly acceptable to do all of the > above

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/17/2017 03:22 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: Agreed, but the above imply NOT RFC 5322 compliant. Please elaborate, if you're referring to more than From: vs Sent-By:. In other words, an invalid DKIM signature SHOULD be treated no differently from no signature. Fair enough. - I suspect DKIM

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On Tue, 2017-10-17 at 14:54 -0700, Mark Sapiro wrote: > In the spirit of DMARC mitigation, we all agree that it is a necessary > evil, at least in some cases, but that doesn't change the fact that it > is an 'evil'. Just as an aside here, my understanding is that validation of an email by DMARC

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/17/2017 04:15 PM, Lindsay Haisley wrote: Just as an aside here, my understanding is that validation of an email by DMARC requires ONE of two things: EITHER the DKIM signature in the email must validate, OR the domain of the From body header must resolve to the IP address of the Sender

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/17/2017 04:40 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > On 10/17/2017 03:22 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: >> Agreed, but the above imply NOT RFC 5322 compliant. > > Please elaborate, if you're referring to more than From: vs Sent-By:. > >> In other words, an invalid DKIM signature SHOULD be

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/17/2017 11:45 AM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: If these actually exist, my spamassassin has been delivering to /dev/null for quite some time now. My impression is they largely died off, possibly thanks to adoption of SPF. If these actually exist? - I'm talking about someone configuring their

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/17/2017 02:40 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > On 10/17/2017 03:22 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: >> Agreed, but the above imply NOT RFC 5322 compliant. > > Please elaborate, if you're referring to more than From: vs Sent-By:. What I mean is as I posted previously

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/17/2017 04:28 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: Why? If this message doesn't match its signature, then it has been altered in transit for sure. If were not signed, like when I post from home (because I can't be arsed to set gpg up on winderz), then there's no telling if it was or wasn't. One of

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On Tue, 2017-10-17 at 16:28 -0600, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > That is a per domain setting left up to the DMARC publisher. The DMARC publisher is not the system refusing delivery. The publisher advertises a policy. The receiving system honors it, or not. > At least my understanding

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/17/2017 03:15 PM, Lindsay Haisley wrote: > > Just as an aside here, my understanding is that validation of an email > by DMARC requires ONE of two things: EITHER the DKIM signature in the > email must validate, OR the domain of the From body header must resolve > to the IP address of the

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/17/2017 09:10 AM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > > I know that I am not personally sending this message to anyone other > than the single address that is the mailman-users mailing list.  -  The > mailman-users mailing list is what is sending message to all the > subscribers, *NOT*

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/17/2017 10:38 AM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > On 10/17/2017 10:55 AM, Christian F Buser via Mailman-Users wrote: > >> However, could you please elaborate whether Mailman (version 2.x or >> 3.x) or any other mailing list software really follows your ideas? > > Yes!!!  Mailman

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On Tue, 2017-10-17 at 16:20 -0700, Mark Sapiro wrote: > See my post that I was still typing when this was sent > html>. > 2) It must pass SPF. SPF works on the domain of the SMTP envelope from. > Thus for SPF to pass, that

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/17/2017 03:54 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: What I mean is as I posted previously , RFC 5322 says the From: contains the "the mailbox(es) of the person(s) or system(s) responsible for the writing of the message." and

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/17/2017 05:36 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > /me wonders what color Dimitri's hat is.  ;-)  #knowtheyenemy I've a "tactical foliage green" kufiah, best five bucks I ever spent on an article of clothing. The point was that SPF will flag messages with ineptly spoofed From

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On Tue, 2017-10-17 at 17:33 -0700, Mark Sapiro wrote: > In another thread on mailman-developers, I discussed organizational > domains with Lindsay, so I assumed he knew. Yes, technically I know, but this kind of stuff makes my head hurt and my hats to change colors, so I fall back on "If it

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mail Delivery

At 08:23 PM 10/17/2017, Mark Sapiro wrote: On 10/17/2017 05:32 PM, David Andrews wrote: > At one time I set > Reply-To: header munging > under general settings to Yes. Some of my users used a screen reader > that balked unless the header was munged, for some reason. Well that > software

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/17/2017 06:00 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: I've a "tactical foliage green" kufiah, best five bucks I ever spent on an article of clothing. I like it. The point was that SPF will flag messages with ineptly spoofed From addresses, and I don't seem to see any of those anymore. ;-) As for

[Mailman-Users] Mail Delivery

At one time I set Reply-To: header munging under general settings to Yes. Some of my users used a screen reader that balked unless the header was munged, for some reason. Well that software has gone away, and ISP's are much pickier these days, with MARC and dkim and SPF etc. Would this

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/17/2017 04:46 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > > I decided to see if there was an update to RFC 5322, and lo and behold > there is.  RFC 6854, which specifically updates RFC 5322 section 3.6.2 > and allows group address syntax exists. > > TL;DR:  From: can now contain a Group

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mail Delivery

On 10/17/2017 05:32 PM, David Andrews wrote: > At one time I set > Reply-To: header munging > under general settings to Yes. Some of my users used a screen reader > that balked unless the header was munged, for some reason.  Well that > software has gone away, and ISP's are much pickier these

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/17/2017 06:28 PM, Lindsay Haisley wrote: > > Yes, technically I know, but this kind of stuff makes my head hurt and > my hats to change colors, so I fall back on "If it works, don't fix > it". I hear that and I feel your pain. Somehow it was all simpler when I was younger, and I don't

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/17/2017 03:38 PM, Lindsay Haisley wrote: > > Any system which REQUIRES DKIM validation to pass is out of compliance > with RFCs, as I understand it. A DKIM signature which doesn't validate > MUST be treated the same as no DKIM signature at all. Actually, it's SHOULD, not MUST in the

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/17/2017 05:07 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: The reference is the DMARC standard RFC 7489 . I need to go back and re-read that again. It's more complicated than the above. There is a concept of domain alignment. Alignment is satisfied in either

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/17/2017 05:04 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > On 10/17/2017 05:07 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: > > My brain is failing to translate "corresponding organizational domains" > to "sub-domains" properly and what that means for strict vs relaxed. In another thread on mailman-developers,

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On Wed, 2017-10-18 at 12:38 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > This whole thread reminds me of an evangelical arguing with a Jesuit. > 2000 years of Bible study does make for strong debating! Welll  Spending much time reading RFCs can certainly put one in a biblical frame of mind ;)  Lots of

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

This whole thread reminds me of an evangelical arguing with a Jesuit. 2000 years of Bible study does make for strong debating! Please note that the Sender/From distinction *and* the semantic interpretations of those fields go back to RFC 733 (1977!) at least, and the Society of Jesus, er, IETF