Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 08:49:02PM +0200, Ralph Seichter wrote: > > Even something as simple as "DKIM will not check anything past the > > first signature delimiter" would have solved all the problems, except > > that the "problem" was a religious one, not a technical one. > > Religious. Oh my.

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On 31.08.2017 19:15, @lbutlr wrote: > > Meta information belongs into the message headers, not the body. > > Not on a general list that is not used by computer nerds it does not. I still firmly believe it does, because the body (content) is written by list members while the header (meta) is

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On 29 Aug 2017, at 06:12, Ralph Seichter wrote: > On 29.08.2017 13:42, @lbutlr wrote: > >> There are very good reasons for footers on many lists, and DKIM should >> be smart enough to figure this out. > > I disagree about "very good reasons for footers on many

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On 30.08.2017 03:24, Richard Damon wrote: > I suggest you then talk the the legislators in the jurisdictions that > MANDATE that many mailing list have clearly visible {munged, see P.S.} > instructions. Electronic mailing lists with a global reach which folks like myself have been using since

Re: [SPAM?] Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On 8/29/17 8:12 AM, Ralph Seichter wrote: On 29.08.2017 13:42, @lbutlr wrote: There are very good reasons for footers on many lists, and DKIM should be smart enough to figure this out. I disagree about "very good reasons for footers on many lists". Meta information belongs into the message

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On 29.08.2017 15:43, Norton Allen wrote: > The problem with sticking all the list meta-information in the headers > is that most users have no idea how to access email headers or parse > them for the salient information. I see it as a MUA's task to present meta information in a palatable way,

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

Norton Allen skrev den 2017-08-29 15:43: The problem with sticking all the list meta-information in the headers is that most users have no idea how to access email headers or parse them for the salient information. squirrelmail have plugin for list-id headers, that plugin is not in roundcube

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

Philip Paeps skrev den 2017-08-29 15:18: Scribbling in the body also breaks PGP signatures. At least that's trivially worked around by adding the list footer in a separate MIME part as many lists do. But DKIM still doesn't like that. imho opendkim can limit body content signing (body

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On 8/29/2017 8:12 AM, Ralph Seichter wrote: I disagree about "very good reasons for footers on many lists". Meta information belongs into the message headers, not the body. DKIM-signed messages are letters, not postcards, and no non-totalitarian postal service would dare open your letter and

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On 2017-08-29 14:12:29 (+0200), Ralph Seichter wrote: On 29.08.2017 13:42, @lbutlr wrote: There are very good reasons for footers on many lists, and DKIM should be smart enough to figure this out. I disagree about "very good reasons for footers on many lists". Meta information belongs into

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

Hah, Thanks for the pointers, especially Ralph! > I disagree about "very good reasons for footers on many lists". Meta > information belongs into the message headers, not the body. I've been thinking along those lines too... there could easily be new header definitions for "Suggested Tagging"

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On 29.08.2017 13:42, @lbutlr wrote: > There are very good reasons for footers on many lists, and DKIM should > be smart enough to figure this out. I disagree about "very good reasons for footers on many lists". Meta information belongs into the message headers, not the body. DKIM-signed messages

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On 29 Aug 2017, at 06:00, Benny Pedersen wrote: > let me come with a joke now, if we stop verifying dkim to the first mail > signature and just say all under that sig is mailllist forged content we did > not open a can of worms to solve afterwards ? > > i think people need to

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

@lbutlr skrev den 2017-08-29 13:42: There are very good reasons for footers on many lists, and DKIM should be smart enough to figure this out. its solved in arc ? i still dont know if arc will replace dmarc or not, if maillists stop breaking dkim, then dmarc and arc is not needed at all

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On 29 Aug 2017, at 04:54, Ralph Seichter wrote: > If you need an example (to name but one), see the Roundcube Users > mailing list, which still adds a footer to the message bodies, thus > breaking DKIM. Very easily prevented by flipping a configuration switch, > alas

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

Rick van Rein: [ Charset ISO-8859-1 converted... ] > Hi, > > > i noted that it's possible to get dmarc fail on postfix maillist > > > > its spf none, dkim none, dmarc fail, in my tests, arc is not tested or > > planned to be in use > > > I tested your two emails for DKIM, and both failed for

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On 29.08.2017 09:21, Rick van Rein wrote: > [...] DKIM, SPF and DMARC are of interest to any mail flow. They sure are. If you browse through mailing list archives of years gone by, you can find my own messages about list X or Y breaking DKIM, SPF or both. Also, people have been passionate about

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

Hi, > i noted that it's possible to get dmarc fail on postfix maillist > > its spf none, dkim none, dmarc fail, in my tests, arc is not tested or > planned to be in use I tested your two emails for DKIM, and both failed for me. The ones by Noel and Ralph did get through. I used dkimverify.py

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

Hello, I should not have used this list as an example :) because it undermined my point. > messages on the Postfix mailing list > usually score with deep negative values in SpamAssassin. You're barking > up the wrong tree here. ;-) My interest in spam is due to the apparent move that email is

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On 8/28/2017 3:18 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: > Ralph Seichter skrev den 2017-08-28 22:05: >> usually score with deep negative values in SpamAssassin. You're >> barking >> up the wrong tree here. ;-) > > and Reply-To: is safe to remove in smtp_header_checks Assuming your users neither use

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

Ralph Seichter skrev den 2017-08-28 22:05: usually score with deep negative values in SpamAssassin. You're barking up the wrong tree here. ;-) and Reply-To: is safe to remove in smtp_header_checks since its not default dkim signed its not safe to remove in header_checks, if remotes sign it

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On 28.08.17 17:42, Rick van Rein wrote: > I've been studying SPF, DKIM, DMARC and a bit of ARC. And I've been > wondering if a list [including this one] could be more friendly by > using Reply-To: to hold the message sender. The Postfix mailing list is "friendly" already. It does not break DKIM

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

Rick van Rein skrev den 2017-08-28 19:09: Interestingly, This list is a modest exception -- DKIM should pass through it perfectly, mostly because it does not change the Subject: From: To: or body. But the question was about soundness of the general Reply-To: idea anyway. i noted that it's

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

Interestingly, This list is a modest exception -- DKIM should pass through it perfectly, mostly because it does not change the Subject: From: To: or body. But the question was about soundness of the general Reply-To: idea anyway. -Rick

Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

Hi, I've been studying SPF, DKIM, DMARC and a bit of ARC. And I've been wondering if a list [including this one] could be more friendly by using Reply-To: to hold the message sender. These spam-fighting methods have the greatest difficulty with email forwarding and lists because: - changes to