FYI, I migrated to Mailman 2.1.18-1 shortly after Yahoo decided to break
every mailing list on the Internet for no good reason. (It certainly
has done nothing to mitigate the ongoing flow of spam, phishing and
other abuse coming from Yahoo, which continues pretty much as it has
for many years.)
a better approach would be to recommend that mailing list participants
who want to actually participate should utilize a mail service
appropriate for the purpose.
support
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
a better approach would be to recommend that mailing list participants
who want to actually participate should utilize a mail service
appropriate for the purpose.
support
to be fair, this means EITHER one which does not DMARC
a better approach would be to recommend that mailing list participants
who want to actually participate should utilize a mail service
appropriate for the purpose.
support
to be fair, this means EITHER one which does not DMARC mark messages
OR one which disrespects DMARC. Right?
to one
On Oct 10, 2014, at 8:05 AM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
a better approach would be to recommend that mailing list participants
who want to actually participate should utilize a mail service
appropriate
On 10/10/2014 08:10 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
a better approach would be to recommend that mailing list participants
who want to actually participate should utilize a mail service
appropriate for the purpose.
support
to be fair, this means EITHER one which does not DMARC mark messages
OR one which
Call it triage. When a minuscule amount of mailing list traffic is weighed
against huge volumes of forged spam and phish...
On 10-Oct-2014 9:40 pm, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
On 10/10/2014 08:10 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
a better approach would be to recommend that mailing list
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:31 AM, Steve Atkins st...@blighty.com wrote:
If your domain publishes p=reject it should not have any users
that participate in mailing lists.
Like many, I was pretty unhappy (and busy) with the unilateral changes
made by Yahoo and AOL. But this understandable stance
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Royce Williams ro...@techsolvency.com wrote:
What other theory about their motivation makes sense?
Most of the DMARC backers offer one or more services that compete with
traditional mailinglists.
-Jim P.
On Oct 10, 2014, at 9:21 AM, Royce Williams ro...@techsolvency.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:31 AM, Steve Atkins st...@blighty.com wrote:
If your domain publishes p=reject it should not have any users
that participate in mailing lists.
Like many, I was pretty unhappy (and busy) with
But other than providing more warning, what would have been a better
way to start eliminating forged senders? Everything I've read
indicates that both Yahoo and AOL did this with eyes wide open.
A good move would have been to improve their security so that AOL and
Yahoo didn't have massive
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 09:48:26PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Call it triage. When a minuscule amount of mailing list traffic is weighed
against huge volumes of forged spam and phish...
Triage as an abuse mitigation tactic is fine. But where that triage
needs to be applied, and
Hello Colleagues,
The NANOG mailing list had a discussion several months back regarding
changes that Yahoo made to their DMARC settings. Over the past day,
the NANOG mailing list has received a number of posts from yahoo.com
mail users. This triggered bounce action on nearly 300 NANOG
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Andrew Koch a...@gawul.net wrote:
To correct this moving forward, selective rewriting of the from header
has been recommended, but requires an upgrade to the Mailman software.
If the admins have settled on a best practice, it could help other
Mailman operators
14 matches
Mail list logo
