On April 29, 2019 3:46:03 AM UTC, John Levine via mailop
wrote:
>
>Still waiting to hear when mailop.org adds its SPF record.
Didn't it take almost 2 years the last time we waited on mailop.org to fix a
cert?
-Jim P.
On mobile so pls excuse any brevity, typos, lack of taste, crudeness, down
In article <69632fdf-2440-4480-8afe-5cbf36aa0...@billmail.scconsult.com> you
write:
>HOWEVER: if I understand Simon's description of the rejection events
>correctly, the trigger was specifically a message with a broken DKIM
>signature which had not had its From munged (because the DMARC record
Just to be clear, we all understand that these funky DKIM signatures
have nothing to do with the reason that Google is rejecting mailop
messages, right?
R's,
John
>On 4/28/19 12:38 PM, Chris Adams via mailop wrote:
>> So should mailing lists reject such messages?
>
>No. Absolutely not.
>
>The
On 4/28/19 12:38 PM, Chris Adams via mailop wrote:
So should mailing lists reject such messages?
No. Absolutely not.
The DKIM specification states that a failed DKIM-Signature validation
should be treated like a lack of a DKIM-Signature.
I think the list MTA should accept the messages
In article <20190428183815.ga30...@cmadams.net>,
Chris Adams via mailop wrote:
>Once upon a time, Grant Taylor via mailop said:
>> On 4/28/19 11:35 AM, John Levine via mailop wrote:
>> >Oversigning those headers is silly.
>>
>> Oversigning may be /silly/. But it's still the sending site's
On 28 Apr 2019, at 13:05, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote:
On 4/27/19 11:43 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
I can't say "should" because that's a site-specific/sender-specific
choice.
As is the choice to (over)sign headers, even non-existent headers;
List-*, Sender, etc.
Qualitatively different
Once upon a time, Grant Taylor via mailop said:
> On 4/28/19 11:35 AM, John Levine via mailop wrote:
> >Oversigning those headers is silly.
>
> Oversigning may be /silly/. But it's still the sending site's choice.
So should mailing lists reject such messages? If they're going to add
headers
On 4/28/19 11:35 AM, John Levine via mailop wrote:
Oversigning those headers is silly.
Oversigning may be /silly/. But it's still the sending site's choice.
Let's say you send out a DKIM signed message without Sender and
List-Foo, and then an extremely malicious mailing list grabs your
In article you write:
>On Sun, 28 Apr 2019, Simon Lyall via mailop wrote:
>> Well since that email just triggered another round of bounces I've just
>> updated mailop's mailman config to mung all email addresses (hopefully,
>> this email is a test).
>
>Well the good news is that worked. The bad
> Another issue in that is the choice to send mail over IPv6. This has
> well-known risks of running into more draconian filtering than sticking
> with IPv4, and the operators of the mailing lists system have clearly
> NOT considered those risks or their mitigation.
> Mailing list managers should
On 4/28/2019 5:20 AM, Simon Lyall via mailop wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019, Simon Lyall via mailop wrote:
Well since that email just triggered another round of bounces I've
just updated mailop's mailman config to mung all email addresses
(hopefully, this email is a test).
Well the good news is
In article ,
Grant Taylor via mailop wrote:
>On 4/27/19 1:09 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
>> Yes, because the signature included the Sender and List-* headers,
>> probably non-existent originally, which mailing lists typically
>> (including this one) add to messages they relay.
>
>Thus the Sender and
On 4/28/2019 9:56 AM, Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
On 28 Apr 2019, at 2:19, Brielle Bruns wrote:
On 4/27/2019 11:19 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
Basically DKIM on my EXIM server is configured in the default way
which Debian’s config file sets it up once you provide it with the
necessary keys for
On 4/28/19 10:21 AM, Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
Or just set bounce_score_threshold to a sane value?
Doing that simply moves the line. It doesn't actually solve the problem.
It may work for most normal day-to-day sending values. But any time you
have a contentious topic, like this one,
On 4/27/19 11:43 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
I can't say "should" because that's a site-specific/sender-specific choice.
As is the choice to (over)sign headers, even non-existent headers;
List-*, Sender, etc.
It's a thing that could be done with some effort, the right tools, and
properly trained
On 28 Apr 2019, at 10:19, Leo Gaspard via mailop wrote:
"Bill Cole" writes:
I know from doing it that limbo-free email can be done well enough
(minimal bad mail being delivered or good mail being rejected) that
paying users will come to prefer it over freemail-like service. That
service model
On 28 Apr 2019, at 7:20, Simon Lyall via mailop wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019, Simon Lyall via mailop wrote:
Well since that email just triggered another round of bounces I've
just updated mailop's mailman config to mung all email addresses
(hopefully, this email is a test).
Well the good news
On 28 Apr 2019, at 2:19, Brielle Bruns wrote:
On 4/27/2019 11:19 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
Basically DKIM on my EXIM server is configured in the default way
which Debian’s config file sets it up once you provide it with the
necessary keys for signing. If it’s got something that they need
to fix
On 28.04.19 13:20, Simon Lyall via mailop wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2019, Simon Lyall via mailop wrote:
>> Well since that email just triggered another round of bounces I've
>> just updated mailop's mailman config to mung all email addresses
>> (hopefully, this email is a test).
>
> Well the good
"Bill Cole" writes:
> I know from doing it that limbo-free email can be done well enough
> (minimal bad mail being delivered or good mail being rejected) that
> paying users will come to prefer it over freemail-like service. That
> service model lacks significant economies of scale (and arguably
On 28/04/2019 21:20, Simon Lyall via mailop wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2019, Simon Lyall via mailop wrote:
>
>> Well since that email just triggered another round of bounces I've just
>> updated mailop's mailman config to mung all email addresses (hopefully, this
>> email is a test).
>
> Well
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019, Simon Lyall via mailop wrote:
Well since that email just triggered another round of bounces I've just
updated mailop's mailman config to mung all email addresses (hopefully,
this email is a test).
Well the good news is that worked. The bad news is that gmail just bounced
Brielle Bruns writes:
> EXIM is generating that list based on RFC 4871 (Section 5.5 lists
> recommended).
There's a discrepancy in the wording, though.
The RFC says, about the list given: "The following header fields SHOULD
be included in the signature, if they are present in the message being
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019, Brielle Bruns wrote:
For a long time, I refused to insert DKIM headers on the grounds it
created situations like this. But, you can thank certain large
providers who make some hurdles if you don't have DKIM signed messages.
Well since that email just triggered another
Anyone from AOL on this list? Can you contact me offlist to sort an issue out
we – Python.org Postmaster team – noted on the mailing lists?
TIA
p@rick
--
[*] sys4 AG
https://sys4.de, +49 (89) 30 90 46 64
Schleißheimer Straße 26/MG,80333 München
Sitz der Gesellschaft: München, Amtsgericht
On 4/27/2019 11:19 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
Basically DKIM on my EXIM server is configured in the default way
which Debian’s config file sets it up once you provide it with the
necessary keys for signing. If it’s got something that they need to
fix to make it behave better, I’m all for getting
26 matches
Mail list logo
