Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/19/2017 09:26 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > > I can respect your concern about the Message-ID changing, especially > with deduplication.  However, I counter that the new message from the > resending MLM is in fact a different message than the one that the > original author

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/19/2017 09:14 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > > RFC 6377 - DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) and Mailing Lists, > disagrees with you.  (RFC 6377 is also currently known as BCP 167.) I am too tired at the moment to respond to your posts more completely. I may do so tomorrow.

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/19/2017 10:14 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: /The output of a resending MLM is/ *a new message*. ... *The resending MLM is the author* /of the new message/. Since the MLM is the author of the new message, I think it would be prudent to use either of the following as the

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/19/2017 09:15 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: I think that won't happen. The use of p=none subdomains by various entities that publish p=reject for their primary domain is intended for addresses for their own staff to use in communicating via mailing lists and perhaps other channels. If a freemail

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/19/2017 12:37 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: The IETF has NO position on WHEN this should be done because it's not relevant to interoperability. My personal reasoning with respect to mailing list managers like Mailman which normally pass through all text/plain, and perhaps add some tags

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/18/2017 11:50 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote: This is the crux of our disagreement. The outbound message is still the original author's message, albeit slightly altered by subject prefixing, content filtering and/or other transformations to conform with list policies. I don't agree that it is a

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/19/2017 04:07 AM, William Bagwell wrote: > > So if enough users of Yahoo and AOL requested something such as > u...@list.aol.com to not be DMARC p=reject they /might/ listen? I think that won't happen. The use of p=none subdomains by various entities that publish p=reject for their

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On Thursday 19 October 2017, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > As Mark says, they should use an @sysadmins.irs.gov address or > something like that, which would have its own p=none policy.  Note > that this has been already standard practice at Yahoo! (!), AOL (!!), > LinkedIn, and several banks that

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 2017-10-19 01:36, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: (I don't understand Dimitri's claim about SourceForge ads; all the mail I get from SourceForge is originated there and AFAIK the DKIM validates. If it doesn't, their system is pretty brain-damaged.) It is, but not DKIM-drain-bramaged. I

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users writes: > IMHO, DMARC is going to eventually become the new norm. It has been so since late 2015, according to the DMARC Consortium. At that time they claimed that 80% of legitimate email was originated at domains that participate in DMARC reporting protocols. I

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

Dimitri Maziuk writes: > That does not contradict what I said. Low specificity means low > probability of detection of "bad stuff". I.e. it doesn't mean much that > most of it passes. That may be true for you, but for most of us having most of our mail have a valid DKIM signature, plus a

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

Mark Sapiro writes: > I don't agree that it is a completely new message. I think it is > still the original message with only technical and formatting > changes. The IETF's position is that this decision is up to the forwarding agent. If they change the Message-ID, that means they consider

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users writes: > I use DKIM validity as a signal that I then make decisions based on. - > Hence why I have chosen to alter spam score on my mail server based on > the DKIM result. You can do that. But call it what it is: a deliberate decision NOT to conform to a

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/18/2017 03:41 PM, Jordan Brown wrote: > On 10/18/2017 11:35 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote: >> DMARC is not the problem. It is perfectly reasonable for say, irs.gov >> to publish DMARC p=reject as long as mail From: irs.gov is not an >> employees personal post to an email list. Presumably the IRS

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/18/2017 03:42 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: Because the very first $relayhost may apply transport encoding. You have to compute the hash before that happens. It's my understanding that DKIM is usually applied by the egress MSA / MTA. I guess an MSA could apply DKIM itself. It would need to

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/18/2017 04:26 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > On 10/18/2017 02:10 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: > > Do I understand you correctly to mean to create the signature before > applying transport encoding? > >> Only, you can't do that on the MX, it has to be done on the client. > > Why

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/18/2017 02:10 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: They are different ASCII representations of the same byte, yes. They are not the same text. Hum. I wonder if we have been talking about slightly different things. I've been referring to "ü" being displayed the same in MUAs which is interpreting

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/18/2017 02:32 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > I'm referring to the difference between: > >  - ü  - ASCII (?) >  - =C3=BC - quoted-printable >  - w7w=   - base 64 >  - - HTML > > All four representations are for the *same* letter / character / glyph / > byte(s). They are

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/18/2017 01:07 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: 17 == 0x11. "17" != "0x11". Which was precisely the point: if your MTA, say, does unicodedata.normalize( 'NFKD' ... ), and turns u-umlaut into a regular "u", you may consider it benign. Many won't. I would not consider that benign at all. I'm

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/18/2017 01:30 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > The (decimal) number 17 can be encoded multiple ways: > > 10001 = binary  base  2 >    25 = hex base  6 >    21 = octal   base  8 >    17 = decimal base 10 >    11 = hexadecimal base 16 > > All five encoded

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/18/2017 12:35 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: DMARC is not the problem. It is perfectly reasonable for say, irs.gov to publish DMARC p=reject as long as mail From: irs.gov is not an employees personal post to an email list. Presumably the IRS would have rules against that. The problem is when

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/18/2017 11:14 AM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > > I think it will be interesting to see what happens as more and more > domains adopt DMARC, including those that use p=reject.  Especially with > some of governmental institutions purportedly being mandated to use > DMARC.  -  IMHO,

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/18/2017 11:51 AM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: Like tnеtсоnsulting.nеt being a benign minor encoding change in a couple of characters? No. That is not a simple content encoding change. Content (re)encoding changes the representation of the same encoded data. <е> 1077, Hex 0435, Octal 2065

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/18/2017 11:50 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote: ... This is the crux of our disagreement. The outbound message is still the original author's message, albeit slightly altered by subject prefixing, content filtering and/or other transformations to conform with list policies. I don't agree that it is a

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/18/2017 11:37 AM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > I believe I remember (but can't point to) something in the DKIM spec > that referenced the possibility that the DKIM signature could be broken > by things as benign as an MTA doing a content transfer encoding > conversion.  -  I have

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/18/2017 09:31 AM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > > Um  My interpretation of 6854 § 1 and § 4 makes me think that an > empty group list is perfectly acceptable.  Further, the group list can > be non-empty and contain the lists posting address. True, but in either case it still

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/18/2017 09:18 AM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: Then you seem to misunderstand what crypto signatures actually do. I believe I understand what the crypto signatures actually do. We are each entitled to decide what to actually do based on the result of the crypto signature (in)validity. If

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

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 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] 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] 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 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

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 05:36 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 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 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 03:38 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

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). paul - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > On Oct 15, 2017, at 5:07, Stephen J. Turnbull > wrote: > > tl;dr I

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

Mark Sapiro writes: > Are you suggesting that we ignore bounces that can be determined to be > due to DMARC policy. Not *completely* ignore. There are several independent actions we can take based on bounces, depending on list option settings. I'm suggesting only that we not increment the

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

tl;dr I miswrote when I wrote that Hotmail is a problem sending domain. It never was and currently is not. I was thinking of AOL which was and is a problem. The rest of this post explains why DMARC is a mostly good thing, including a *very* high-level view of what it is good *for*. Mark Sapiro

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

Thanks Mark. Have made the changes (and told people they can refrain from changing providers for the time being. I appreciate your help as well as that of the other contributors. > On Oct 12, 2017, at 5:13, Mark Sapiro wrote: > > On 10/11/2017 03:31 AM, mailbox.org

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/11/2017 03:31 AM, mailbox.org wrote: > > OK, there are three: > Action to take when anyone posts to the list from a domain with a DMARC > Reject/Quarantine Policy. MUNGE FROM > Shall the above dmarc_moderation_action apply to messages From: domains with > DMARC p=quarantine as well as

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/10/2017 07:44 PM, Paul Arenson wrote: > So your judgment would be for Yahoo users in particular to get a new address? > How about hotmail, outlook, or gmail users? ; <<>> DiG 9.10.3-P4-Ubuntu <<>> txt _dmarc.hotmail.com ... ;; ANSWER SECTION: _dmarc.hotmail.com. 3600IN TXT

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

Let me repost that. Somehow my signature appeared mid post and made it look like that was my entire message. I should not post from my phone. Easier to edit at the computer as I am now. Thanks, Mark and Stephen, Anyway, to confirm my version is 2.1.23 It seems that the names that both of

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

Dmitri, Chip, Mark Thank you. So your judgment would be for Yahoo users in particular to get a new address? How about hotmail, outlook, or gmail users? Of course they could,  I assume, keep those addresses for

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/10/2017 08:33 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > @mark: > > The Hotmail error message does make it sufficiently clear that these > bounces are due to DMARC. I will probably file an RFE to catch these > against Mailman 3. Would you like me to do that for Mailman 2, or is > this "obvously not

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

@mark: The Hotmail error message does make it sufficiently clear that these bounces are due to DMARC. I will probably file an RFE to catch these against Mailman 3. Would you like me to do that for Mailman 2, or is this "obvously not worth it" in your opinion? (I intend to supply code

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/10/2017 04:28 PM, Chip Davis wrote: > On 10/10/2017 6:20 PM, p...@tokyoprogressive.org wrote: >> >> Thank you, Mark.  Had to resend this as I forgot to remove the quotes >> in the first attempt. Re it being a DMARC issue, all the options look >> bad (except telling people to use another

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/10/2017 03:20 PM, p...@tokyoprogressive.org wrote: > > OPTIONS > A few are unclear, such as RESTARTING Mailman. How does one restart it? I use > Cpanel and do not know the inner workings. > > Which do you think it the best of the suggestions? I already have content > filtering set to off

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/10/2017 6:20 PM, p...@tokyoprogressive.org wrote: Thank you, Mark. Had to resend this as I forgot to remove the quotes in the first attempt. Re it being a DMARC issue, all the options look bad (except telling people to use another email provider). Which is exactly what I do with the

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On 10/10/2017 05:10 PM, p...@tokyoprogressive.org wrote: >> Can you give me your opinion. Is it Yahoo that is breaking mailing lists, or >> is it Yahoo, Gmail and Hotmail? All of the above. -- Dimitri Maziuk Programmer/sysadmin BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

Thank you, Mark. Had to resend this as I forgot to remove the quotes in the first attempt. Re it being a DMARC issue, all the options look bad (except telling people to use another email provider). OPTIONS A few are unclear, such as RESTARTING Mailman. How does one restart it? I use

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

EMAIL tokyoprogress...@mailbox.org p...@tokyoprogressive.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NEWS AND ACTIVISM http://tokyoprogressive.org MUSIC http://paularenson.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Phone/Voice Mail 050-5308-5394 From abroad 81-50-5308-5394 Phone/SMS

Re: [Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

On October 9, 2017 11:56:02 PM PDT, p...@tokyoprogressive.org wrote: >Hi and hope the answer(s) to my question are relatively simple. On one >of two lists I manage, some people are getting deleted due to too many >bounces. And the bounces seem to be related to their mail provider not >allowing