*nods* Two conversations:
1) What does tier 1 mean?
2) Does it matter?
1) Varies, based on if you are trying to include yourself in that list or not.
2) No.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
-
I welcomed bulk mail after I switched to reading news online - needed
something to start the fireplace.
If I could I'd ban plastic envelope windows.
> On Aug 1, 2022, at 7:38 PM, Michael Rathbun wrote:
>
> The incremental cost of unwanted postal mail deposited in a recycling bin
> in most US municipalities is 0.% of the monthly charge. The sender is,
> however, paying USPS for (however degraded) delivery. This works for me.
Just to
On 8/1/22 9:47 PM, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote:
On Aug 1, 2022, at 9:38 PM, Michael Rathbun wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 12:11:07 -0400, William Allen Simpson
wrote:
At our residence, the US mailbox is positioned near the recycling bin.
Bulk mail generally goes directly into recycling
>
> This conventional interpretation is the one I'm applying in this question.
>
I would argue even the 'conventional' definition of 'Tier 1' has been
nebulous for long enough that it doesn't really matter much anymore.
Who a network connects with and how is all that matters, regardless of what
> On Aug 2, 2022, at 11:58 AM, Tom Beecher wrote:
>
> This conventional interpretation is the one I'm applying in this question.
>
> I would argue even the 'conventional' definition of 'Tier 1' has been
> nebulous for long enough that it doesn't really matter much anymore.
>
> Who a
On 8/2/22 12:30 PM, Jim Popovitch via NANOG wrote:
On Tue, 2022-08-02 at 11:24 -0700, Michael Thomas via NANOG wrote:
On 8/2/22 11:18 AM, Chris Adams via NANOG wrote:
Once upon a time, Chris Adams said:
Once upon a time, Jared Mauch said:
Can someone flip the option in Mailman for DMARC
It appears that Michael Thomas via NANOG said:
>
>On 8/2/22 12:30 PM, Jim Popovitch via NANOG wrote:
>> It's been doing it for ages for p=reject, but not p=none (the latter
>> being Jared's situation)
I don't understand Jared's concern. His DMARC policy, like mine, is p=none
which tells
I did manage to get someone to flip the setting so hopefully I’m not getting a
lot of bounce back from this e-mail.
Once again, if you were getting bounces, they had nothing to do with DMARC
because you don't publish a DMARC policy.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator
Well right, to some people it matters, but given enough time, they'll
experience (though probably not learn) why it doesn't.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Jared Mauch"
On 8/2/22 11:18 AM, Chris Adams via NANOG wrote:
Once upon a time, Chris Adams said:
Once upon a time, Jared Mauch said:
Can someone flip the option in Mailman for DMARC please, it’s problematic as if
one posts and does DMARC and has feedback on, our messages are possibly
rejected, and
Once upon a time, Jared Mauch said:
> Can someone flip the option in Mailman for DMARC please, it’s problematic as
> if one posts and does DMARC and has feedback on, our messages are possibly
> rejected, and the feedback from a post is quite large.
The list is doing the DMARC handling (From
Can someone flip the option in Mailman for DMARC please, it’s problematic as if
one posts and does DMARC and has feedback on, our messages are possibly
rejected, and the feedback from a post is quite large.
Not sure who manages it anymore these days.
- Jared
Once upon a time, Chris Adams said:
> Once upon a time, Jared Mauch said:
> > Can someone flip the option in Mailman for DMARC please, it’s problematic
> > as if one posts and does DMARC and has feedback on, our messages are
> > possibly rejected, and the feedback from a post is quite large.
On Tue, 2022-08-02 at 11:24 -0700, Michael Thomas via NANOG wrote:
> On 8/2/22 11:18 AM, Chris Adams via NANOG wrote:
> > Once upon a time, Chris Adams said:
> > > Once upon a time, Jared Mauch said:
> > > > Can someone flip the option in Mailman for DMARC please, it’s
> > > > problematic as if
> On Aug 2, 2022, at 4:31 PM, John Levine via NANOG wrote:
>
> It appears that Michael Thomas via NANOG said:
>>
>> On 8/2/22 12:30 PM, Jim Popovitch via NANOG wrote:
>>> It's been doing it for ages for p=reject, but not p=none (the latter
>>> being Jared's situation)
>
> I don't
On 8/2/22 1:16 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> Can someone flip the option in Mailman for DMARC please, it’s problematic as
> if one posts and does DMARC and has feedback on, our messages are possibly
> rejected, and the feedback from a post is quite large.
>
> Not sure who manages it anymore these
Once upon a time, Bryan Fields said:
> The list is configured to wrap anyone posting from a domain with a with a
> DMARC Reject/Quarantine Policy (dmarc_moderation_action). If you don't have
> this set on your domain, the list will not wrap your message (which is the
> correct behavior as it
On 8/2/22 8:46 PM, Chris Adams via NANOG wrote:
> Once upon a time, Bryan Fields said:
>> The list is configured to wrap anyone posting from a domain with a with a
>> DMARC Reject/Quarantine Policy (dmarc_moderation_action). If you don't have
>> this set on your domain, the list will not wrap
It appears that Jared Mauch said:
>Can someone flip the option in Mailman for DMARC please, it’s problematic as
>if one posts and does DMARC and has feedback on, our
>messages are possibly rejected, and the feedback from a post is quite large.
I checked with Jared and he seems to misunderstand
20 matches
Mail list logo
