Friday, March 10, 2023, 5:54:02 PM, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
> Sorry, I wasn't at all concerned about that, rather the less horizontal
> space any tag takes, more subject I see without horizonal scrolling in
> one-message per line mailbox presentations. I was also quite happy
Hi,
I understand that there's always a limit - this is expected.
But the unexpected part was that the limit is very different on same-ish
functions.
I think making the limit the same for both scenarios would be best - if
either 60 or 200 ( more preferred :P ).
For now I'll take care of my case
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 12:14:31AM -0500, postfix--- via Postfix-users wrote:
> >> If I'd change anything I would delete the '-' in the middle of the
> >> current tag.
> >
> > I'm all in favour, though I also be happy with [U], [D], and [A]. :-)
>
> Or we all could be adults and not giggle like
If I'd change anything I would delete the '-' in the middle of the
current tag.
I'm all in favour, though I also be happy with [U], [D], and [A]. :-)
Or we all could be adults and not giggle like little girls at seeing [P-U]
___
Postfix-users
On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 05:09:02PM -0500, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> If I'd change anything I would delete the '-' in the middle of the
> current tag.
I'm all in favour, though I also be happy with [U], [D], and [A]. :-)
--
Viktor.
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
> Peter via Postfix-users:
> > I think that [postfix] or [postfix-users] and [postfix-devel]
> > [postfix-announce] are just fine, but if you want shortened versions,
> > might I suggest:
> >
> > [pf] [pf-dev] [pf-ann]
>
> Changed to: [pfx], [pfx-dev],
On 3/9/23 18:41, Roger Klorese via Postfix-users wrote:
Wietse, as a non-native English-speaker: are you aware that “p-u” is a childish
declaration that something stinks?
But are we REALLY all eight years old?
--
Phil Stracchino
Babylon Communications
ph...@caerllewys.net
Peter via Postfix-users:
> I think that [postfix] or [postfix-users] and [postfix-devel]
> [postfix-announce] are just fine, but if you want shortened versions,
> might I suggest:
>
> [pf] [pf-dev] [pf-ann]
Changed to: [pfx], [pfx-dev], [pfx-ann]
Wietse
On 10/03/23 11:09, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
I am subscribed to several mailing lists that have [uppercase
abbreviation] as their tag, and that works well. None of those tags
are more than 5 characters long.
I have the opposite experience. most of the lists I'm subscribed to
>>> This list uses Mailman configuration settings, not handcrafted code.
>>> If people believe that it is worthwhile to change the Mailman
>>> implementation or the DMARC spec, then I suggest that they work
>>> with the people responsible for that.
>>
>> There is no need for changing
Wietse, as a non-native English-speaker: are you aware that “p-u” is a childish
declaration that something stinks?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 9, 2023, at 2:10 PM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> Peter via Postfix-users:
>>> On 10/03/23 10:04, Dan Mahoney via Postfix-users
Friday, March 10, 2023, 9:09:02 AM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> Peter via Postfix-users:
>> On 10/03/23 10:04, Dan Mahoney via Postfix-users wrote:
>> > I know that P-U stands for postfix users. I get it that a short subject
>> > tag was desired, but would [postfix] have been that
Jaroslaw Rafa wrote in
<20230309222044.ga19...@rafa.eu.org>:
|Dnia 9.03.2023 o godz. 21:39:10 Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users pisze:
|>|With changing From: to point to the list itself and adding Reply-To:
|>|pointing to the author this behaviour hasn't changed. I'm still replying \
|>|to
Dnia 9.03.2023 o godz. 21:39:10 Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users pisze:
> |With changing From: to point to the list itself and adding Reply-To:
> |pointing to the author this behaviour hasn't changed. I'm still replying to
> |the author when I press R and to the list when I press Shift+L.
>
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
<20230309210623.0mekl%stef...@sdaoden.eu>:
...
|This is the crux with email as it is, if they would have invented
|something MIME-alike at the very beginning, and messages would
|really be enveloped entirely, and enveloped entirely, etc., as in
|old times, where
Peter via Postfix-users:
> On 10/03/23 10:04, Dan Mahoney via Postfix-users wrote:
> > I know that P-U stands for postfix users. I get it that a short subject
> > tag was desired, but would [postfix] have been that much more distracting,
> > without adding the obvious third-grader label that
Gerald Galster via Postfix-users:
> > This list uses Mailman configuration settings, not handcrafted code.
> > If people believe that it is worthwhile to change the Mailman
> > implementation or the DMARC spec, then I suggest that they work
> > with the people responsible for that.
>
> There is
> They add their own DKIM on top, aka "put an envelope" around "the
> message", therefore the mail can be verified (to be from them).
That's my point. I do not see a lot of benefit to verify a sender
across a *discussion list*. Broken DKIM mails are usually rejected
by mta before reaching
I cant agree more.I personally, would appropriate changing the "P-U" subject // Jonathan On Mar 9, 2023 22:47, Peter via Postfix-users wrote:On 10/03/23 10:04, Dan Mahoney via Postfix-users wrote:
> I know that P-U stands for postfix users. I get it that a short subject tag was desired, but
On 10/03/23 10:04, Dan Mahoney via Postfix-users wrote:
I know that P-U stands for postfix users. I get it that a short subject tag
was desired, but would [postfix] have been that much more distracting, without
adding the obvious third-grader label that might better be held by qmail?
Gerald Galster wrote in
<4339792b-b58d-4c42-a836-1e71e0eb6...@gcore.biz>:
|> This list uses Mailman configuration settings, not handcrafted code.
|> If people believe that it is worthwhile to change the Mailman
|> implementation or the DMARC spec, then I suggest that they work
|> with the
I know that P-U stands for postfix users. I get it that a short subject tag
was desired, but would [postfix] have been that much more distracting, without
adding the obvious third-grader label that might better be held by qmail?
-Dan
___
On 10/03/23 09:22, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
This list uses Mailman configuration settings, not handcrafted code.
If people believe that it is worthwhile to change the Mailman
implementation or the DMARC spec, then I suggest that they work
with the people responsible for that.
How
> This list uses Mailman configuration settings, not handcrafted code.
> If people believe that it is worthwhile to change the Mailman
> implementation or the DMARC spec, then I suggest that they work
> with the people responsible for that.
There is no need for changing implementations, it's
Matthew McGehrin via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-03-09 21:07:
The Reply-To has always been the original poster for 10+ years. No
sense changing it now. :)
its just not safe to dkim sign
if maillists stop breaking dkim it would be lots better
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.1 required=5.0
Jaroslaw Rafa wrote in
<20230309195933.ga16...@rafa.eu.org>:
|Dnia 9.03.2023 o godz. 13:34:39 postfix--- via Postfix-users pisze:
|> Is it the best idea to add a reply-to header to the author on mailing \
|> list emails?
|> The problem I see is many people will hit reply in their email
This list uses Mailman configuration settings, not handcrafted code.
If people believe that it is worthwhile to change the Mailman
implementation or the DMARC spec, then I suggest that they work
with the people responsible for that.
Wietse
___
On 10/03/23 09:12, Gerald Galster via Postfix-users wrote:
Many email clients have a "Reply List" option which goes to the address in the List-Post: header.
Thunderbird has a "Smart Reply" button that when displaying a message with List-Post: defaults to
"Reply List". I've found that hiding
On 10/03/23 09:07, Matthew McGehrin via Postfix-users wrote:
Hi Peter.
The Reply-To has always been the original poster for 10+ years. No sense
changing it now. :)
On the contrary, this is the perfect time to change it, if we're going
to change it. We've already made a number of changes to
>> Is it the best idea to add a reply-to header to the author on mailing list
>> emails?
>> The problem I see is many people will hit reply in their email client which
>> will create an email from them to the author, bypassing the mailing list.
>> Unless they remember to manually alter the To:
Aleksandr Stankevic via Postfix-users:
> Hi,
>
> I've got a milter that, as part of the job, adds an X-Test-Tracking header
> with a 76 char length string.
> Then, in postfix, i've got a milter_header_checks which uses WARN to log
> this to logs, like:
> /^X-Test-Tracking/ WARN
> I've noticed
On 10/03/23 08:50, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote:
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4pxdmb1f8fzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|postfix--- via Postfix-users:
|> Is it the best idea to add a reply-to header to the author on mailing \
|> list emails?
|> The problem I see is
Hi Peter.
The Reply-To has always been the original poster for 10+ years. No sense
changing it now. :)
Matthew
On 3/9/2023 1:08 PM, Peter via Postfix-users wrote:
On 10/03/23 07:34, postfix--- via Postfix-users wrote:
Is it the best idea to add a reply-to header to the author on mailing
The very much worth reading RFC 9057 of Dave Crocker defines an Author: field...
I like that idea better than my suggestion of footer or x-header.
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
Dnia 9.03.2023 o godz. 13:34:39 postfix--- via Postfix-users pisze:
> Is it the best idea to add a reply-to header to the author on mailing list
> emails?
> The problem I see is many people will hit reply in their email client which
> will create an email from them to the author, bypassing the
Is it the best idea to add a reply-to header to the author on mailing list
emails?
The problem I see is many people will hit reply in their email client which
will create an email from them to the author, bypassing the mailing list.
Unless they remember to manually alter the To: field to keep
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4pxdmb1f8fzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|postfix--- via Postfix-users:
|> Is it the best idea to add a reply-to header to the author on mailing \
|> list emails?
|> The problem I see is many people will hit reply in their email client \
|> which will
Hi,
I've got a milter that, as part of the job, adds an X-Test-Tracking header
with a 76 char length string.
Then, in postfix, i've got a milter_header_checks which uses WARN to log
this to logs, like:
/^X-Test-Tracking/ WARN
I've noticed that it only logs the first 43 chars.
In example the
On 10/03/23 07:34, postfix--- via Postfix-users wrote:
Is it the best idea to add a reply-to header to the author on mailing
list emails?
The problem I see is many people will hit reply in their email client
which will create an email from them to the author, bypassing the
mailing list.
Unless
postfix--- via Postfix-users:
> Is it the best idea to add a reply-to header to the author on mailing list
> emails?
> The problem I see is many people will hit reply in their email client which
> will create an email from them to the author, bypassing the mailing list.
> Unless they remember to
Is it the best idea to add a reply-to header to the author on mailing list
emails?
The problem I see is many people will hit reply in their email client which
will create an email from them to the author, bypassing the mailing list.
Unless they remember to manually alter the To: field to keep
I am still seeing DKIM fails and two DKIM-Signatures.
Is this correct? Haven´t seen this with other mails but I cannot rule out a
config issue on my side. Is someone else observing that?
Yes there will be two DKIM signatures due to the configuration of the mailing
list.
The first DKIM
We'll generate a new 2024 Bit key pair and place the new key in DNS. When we
do that we'll also see to fix the h=sha256 problem. This will take place
within the next 12 hours. Mailman will be restarted in the end and the service
will be unavailable for about 30 seconds. No list mail will be lost.
We'll generate a new 2024 Bit key pair and place the new key in DNS. When we
do that we'll also see to fix the h=sha256 problem. This will take place
within the next 12 hours. Mailman will be restarted in the end and the service
will be unavailable for about 30 seconds. No list mail will be lost.
Michael wrote in
<0d3709b8-72ae-4e54-a8a5-5a82f3b09...@hemathor.de>:
|On Thursday, 9 March 2023 15:29:01 CET, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
|wrote:
|> Let me help remind you that your email address has been out there
|> for a while. Here are some samples from the postfix-users list:
|
|i
On 3/8/23 17:44, Phil Stracchino via Postfix-users wrote:
OK, this is very useful information that's not obvious from the
documentation. I have taken a leap of faith and made the tiny handful
of Postfix configuration changes necessary to let Rspamd handle all of
DKIM, DMARC, SPF instead of
hey,
On Thursday, 9 March 2023 15:29:01 CET, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
wrote:
Let me help remind you that your email address has been out there
for a while. Here are some samples from the postfix-users list:
i am totally aware of that. and to be clear: my email address being public
Michael via Postfix-users:
> wietse,
>
> On Monday, 6 March 2023 17:08:49 CET, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > This week, the Postfix mailing lists will be migrated from Majordomo at
> > Cloud9.net to Mailman at Sys4.de.
> > [...]
>
> what a coincidence!
Let me help remind you that your email address
Michael via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-03-09 11:57:
On Monday, 6 March 2023 17:08:49 CET, Wietse Venema wrote:
This week, the Postfix mailing lists will be migrated from Majordomo
at
Cloud9.net to Mailman at Sys4.de.
[...]
what a coincidence!
wietse,
On Monday, 6 March 2023 17:08:49 CET, Wietse Venema wrote:
This week, the Postfix mailing lists will be migrated from Majordomo at
Cloud9.net to Mailman at Sys4.de.
[...]
what a coincidence!
since 'Monday, 6 March 2023 00:02:20 CET' i see multiple attempts to login
to this email
50 matches
Mail list logo
