migrations (was Re: To all who wish to unsubscribe)
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 08:40:08PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > Which is why the extra email was sent *after* the migration, to make sure > it would be the first one *not* hitting peoples filters, and thus have a > chance of being read even if the others weren't. That surely didn't work, since the relevant people received that mail after the migration had happened. > So do you have any suggestions for actually fixing that? Given that we have > more lists to migrate, if you can figure out a way to make those changes > without peoples filters not matching, we'd be happy to hear it.. I don't have an answer for that, but I will note that if this migration was announced weeks in advance I certainly missed it. I admit I was busy, but I can't find it in the mail I didn't read yet, either. Maybe a two week heads up that some time in the future the mail is going to change (the same announcement as was sent) would help? A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com
Re: To all who wish to unsubscribe
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 02:46:08PM -0800, Steve Atkins wrote: > That's poor practice, for several reasons - replay attacks with added content > and it being an extremely rare practice that's likely to trigger bugs in DKIM > validation are two. The latter is the much bigger deal. > > It also doesn't help much for most MIME encoded mail (including base64 > encoded plain text, like the mail I'm replying to). > > Pretending those paragraphs aren't there is the right thing to do. Yes. Also the DMARC and forthcoming ARC mechanisms -- super important for people behind gmail and yahoo and so on -- make that feature not really work, AFAICT. I think that part of DKIM is busted, and the authors of it I've talked to seem to agree. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@crankycanuck.ca
Re: Nightmare? was unsubscribe
Hi, On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:44:48PM -0600, Igor Korot wrote: > Why people who performed the change couldn't create a mail template > where the "Subscribe/Unsubscribe" > links would be visible at the bottom of the e-mail? That would change the body of the mail. Mail that is DKIM signed (or worse conforms to DMARC) cannot be so changed, or it will fail validation and will be bounced. The bouncing system is then doing the correct thing, and yet it will create "excessive bounces" to the list, which will cause the _validating_ user to become a problem on the list. Users don't control their mail server validation policies, so lists have to conform. Tom Lane explained this upthread somewhere. If you think this is all the consequence of having something like <20 (or <5, depending on how you count) important email services in the universe, plus "everybody else", you're right. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@crankycanuck.ca
Re: migrations (was Re: To all who wish to unsubscribe)
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 01:48:50PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > This is really all pointless. Gee, I love it when people dismiss observations with categorical statements. I'll remember to shut up in the future. Given my erstwhile employer, it's probably insane for me to be posting anyway. > No, further announcements wouldn't have > helped with all the unsubscribe complaints, which is far-and-away the > biggest issue with these kinds of migrations. Yes, if we'd sent out > more emails about the migrations then maybe a few people who actually > want to be on the lists would have had their filters in place ahead of > time, but those aren't the people asking to be unsubscribed or (for the > most part) are complaining about the noise from the lists (and a good > number of them probably wouldn't have bothered to do anything until the > migration happened anyway). All I, at least, was trying to say was that there were some of us who were entirely surprised, and I'm kind of amazed that a bunch of database people didn't announce a planned migration weeks in advance. I a prepared to bet a pretty good lunch that most of us who've spent any time in databaseland would be pretty grouchy if such a migration were sprung on us with a before/after message bounded even by hours, let alone minutes. For me, my mail handling is part of infrastructure -- I get thousands of mails a day -- and so surprising me sucks from my POV. None of this is intended to denigrate the many hours of donated time or the good intentions or even the good idea of getting away from mj2. But I think it's hard to claim that more warning is bad, particularly in the absence of a test universe on which to do A/B tests. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@crankycanuck.ca
Re: To all who wish to unsubscribe
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:57:32AM -0800, Alan Hodgson wrote: > That wouldn't help; DMARC policies are based on the From: header. This is why DKIM and DMARC are different, just to be clear. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@crankycanuck.ca
Re: migrations (was Re: To all who wish to unsubscribe)
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 11:05:37AM -0800, John R Pierce wrote: > they did. you must not have noticed it. I'm sorry I was misinformed, then. I'll look more carefully in my archives and the public ones. I apologise for suggesting that this was not properly announced. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@crankycanuck.ca
Re: migrations (was Re: To all who wish to unsubscribe)
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 11:46:42AM -0800, John R Pierce wrote: > On 11/21/2017 11:42 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > I am not sure if that is sarcasm but I think the reason is pretty self > > explanatory. -Hackers have all the people that understand how all this > > works, -general has all the people that don't. > > rotfl, and ain't that the truth. I know it's enjoyable to make fun of one's users -- those of us who make the DNS happen have apparently made a career of it -- but I don't think it's fair or likely to endear the database system I love to those who might be coming from, say, the database system that employs me. I am pretty sure I know as much about mail processing as most of the people who were involved in this change. I apparently missed an important announcement; that hardly surprises me given the volume of mail I read, and I am pleased to have been corrected (and apologised accordingly). But pointing and laughing at your users and suggesting that they are ignorant rubes is what causes people to turn their backs. I am not going to apologise for being offended by that. It's a nasty thing to do on a -general list. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@crankycanuck.ca
