Am 06.06.2019 um 12:49 schrieb Bjørn Mork:
Daniel Lange writes:
We have more people registered for DebConf ("the Debian Developers'
conference") with @gmail.com than @debian.org addresses.
You can't fix @gmail.com. It is deliberately broken for commercial
reasons, and that won't stop with SP
On 6/6/2019 12:49 PM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Daniel Lange writes:
>
>> We have more people registered for DebConf ("the Debian Developers'
>> conference") with @gmail.com than @debian.org addresses.
>
> You can't fix @gmail.com. It is deliberately broken for commercial
> reasons, and that won't st
Le mer. 5 juin 2019 à 13:26, Marc Haber a
écrit :
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 10:40:26 +0200, Daniel Lange
> wrote:
> >DSA should re-evaluate that.
> >
> >We run into more and more problems sending from @debian.org email
> >addresses as the three big players in email ratchet up their anti-spam
> >measu
On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 12:49:25 +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>You can't fix @gmail.com. It is deliberately broken for commercial
>reasons, and that won't stop with SPF and DKIM. Anti-spam is just the
>current selling excuse for moving users to a closed, commercially
>controlled, messaging service.
>
>D
Daniel Lange writes:
> We have more people registered for DebConf ("the Debian Developers'
> conference") with @gmail.com than @debian.org addresses.
You can't fix @gmail.com. It is deliberately broken for commercial
reasons, and that won't stop with SPF and DKIM. Anti-spam is just the
current
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 10:40:26 +0200, Daniel Lange
wrote:
>DSA should re-evaluate that.
>
>We run into more and more problems sending from @debian.org email
>addresses as the three big players in email ratchet up their anti-spam
>measures.
This message and the following discussion has deeply sadde
Am 04.06.19 um 17:51 schrieb Graham Inggs:
I would certainly make use of SMTP for sending @debian.org email. I
can't see the advantage of IMAP over forwarding though, would you
explain how you see it working, or who would use it?
I wouldn't need IMAP either. But for those who are stuck with
On 2019-06-04 17:51:56, Graham Inggs wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 2019/06/03 10:40, Daniel Lange wrote:
> > To do better, we should really offer SMTP submission/IMAP services for
> > @debian.org as soon as possible and - after a grace period - publish a
> > mx -all SPF record.
>
> I would certainly make us
Hi
On 2019/06/03 10:40, Daniel Lange wrote:
We (debian/DSA) do not provide email hosting. We provide email
forwarding.
DSA should re-evaluate that.
I strongly support this.
I recall this being an issue during debconf 15 and 16 orga, and the
situation has only gotten worse since.
To do be
On Jun 03, Daniel Lange wrote:
> It is a data point to prove your "we do not have forged email issues" wrong.
By "forged email issues" I mean phishing attacks, not garden variety
malware which can be blocked in other ways.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Am 03.06.19 um 22:32 schrieb Marco d'Itri:
On Jun 03, Daniel Lange wrote:
> > -all would stop some forged emails, but we do not have forged email
> > issues.
> We do. 4% of this year's spam in my spam traps have originated as fake
> @debian.org. Unfortunately we even nicely relay them as we ca
On Jun 03, Daniel Lange wrote:
> > -all would stop some forged emails, but we do not have forged email
> > issues.
> We do. 4% of this year's spam in my spam traps have originated as fake
> @debian.org. Unfortunately we even nicely relay them as we can't tell
This is not a meaningful figure unles
Am 03.06.19 um 18:09 schrieb Marco d'Itri:
-all would stop some forged emails, but we do not have forged email
issues.
We do. 4% of this year's spam in my spam traps have originated as fake
@debian.org. Unfortunately we even nicely relay them as we can't tell
legitimate and fake Debian email a
On 2019-06-03 11:37:39 [-0400], Sam Hartman wrote:
> I'd much rather pay money and allow members who do want to use their own
> infrastructure to do so rather than set up an SPF record and force
> everyone to go through the debian mxes.
With my kernel.org address I get mail forwarding and a SMTP s
> "Daniele" == Daniele Nicolodi writes:
Daniele> On 03/06/2019 09:37, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> I'd much rather pay money and allow members who do want to use their own
>> infrastructure to do so rather than set up an SPF record and force
>> everyone to go through the debian mxes.
On 03/06/2019 09:37, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I'd much rather pay money and allow members who do want to use their own
> infrastructure to do so rather than set up an SPF record and force
> everyone to go through the debian mxes.
Pay money for which service exactly? I am not aware of any widely
deploy
Marco d'Itri writes:
> On Jun 03, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> A possibly useful compromise is to do what Marco suggested: publish SPF
>> records for domains like lists.debian.org, where all the mail is coming
>> from Debian infrastructure. That can easily be -all. And then at
>> least we have the o
On Jun 03, Russ Allbery wrote:
> A possibly useful compromise is to do what Marco suggested: publish SPF
> records for domains like lists.debian.org, where all the mail is coming
> from Debian infrastructure. That can easily be -all. And then at least
> we have the option of moving some of the
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 10:40:26AM +0200, Daniel Lange wrote:
We (debian/DSA) do not provide email hosting. We provide email
forwarding.
DSA should re-evaluate that.
I'm not sure I would want the existing DSA resource, spread as thin as it is,
allocated to running a mail hosting service. At l
On Jun 03, Sam Hartman wrote:
> But more than that, you don't need the SPF record.
(Here comes a short lesson on email authentication...)
The most useful way to think about SPF and DKIM is that they allow to
move reputation considerations for a message from the sender IP address
to the sender d
In this thread I'm speaking as an individual.
Other than approving DSA expendatures related to email, the DPL does not
set Debian's email policy.
>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> Sam Hartman writes ("Re: @debian.org mail"):
>
Sam Hartman writes:
>> "Daniel" == Daniel Lange writes:
> Daniel> To do better, we should really offer SMTP submission/IMAP
> Daniel> services for @debian.org as soon as possible and - after a
> Daniel> grace period - publish a mx -all SPF record.
> Actually publishing the SPF r
Le 03/06/2019 à 17:21, Sam Hartman a écrit :
>> "Daniel" == Daniel Lange writes:
>
> Daniel> Hence I'd like us to offer email services to project members.
> That's
> Daniel> an offer. Not a requirement. If DDs use the Debian infra or
> continue
> Daniel> using their current setu
Sam Hartman writes ("Re: @debian.org mail"):
> But more than that, you don't need the SPF record. Debian could pay
> to get on one of the white lists, we could use some services like
> Amazon SES, we could possibly get a good enough dkim reputation that
> we don&#x
> "Daniel" == Daniel Lange writes:
Daniel> Hence I'd like us to offer email services to project members. That's
Daniel> an offer. Not a requirement. If DDs use the Debian infra or continue
Daniel> using their current setup, all fine for me.
We're agreed so far.
Daniel> Yes,
Hi Sam,
Am 03.06.19 um 13:29 schrieb Sam Hartman:
1) You're asking all DDs to use this infrastructure you set up.
Currently everybody routes inbound mail via two Debian servers (as they
are the only MXs for debian.org).
Everybody who needs to make sure they can reach @gmail.com / GApps user
> "Daniel" == Daniel Lange writes:
Daniel> To do better, we should really offer SMTP submission/IMAP services
for
Daniel> @debian.org as soon as possible and - after a grace period -
publish a
Daniel> mx -all SPF record.
Actually publishing the SPF record seems fairly problemat
On Jun 03, Daniel Lange wrote:
> The default reply for missing wafer confirmation emails (the software
> running debconf19.debconf.org) and missing salsa password reset emails is
> "check your Spam folder". Debian.org doesn't have a SPF record so mail
> submitted from such Debian machines is a bi
On 2019/06/03 10:40, Daniel Lange wrote:
> Mail submitted from DD's private IPs frequently gets flagged as spam
> regardless of content by all three big players and - if submitted via
> IPv6 - refused directly by Google. Microsoft and Yahoo still run their
> MXs IPv4 only. But we can expect a simil
We (debian/DSA) do not provide email hosting. We provide email
forwarding.
DSA should re-evaluate that.
We run into more and more problems sending from @debian.org email
addresses as the three big players in email ratchet up their anti-spam
measures.
They are hosting a huge share of our use
]] Jean-Philippe MENGUAL
> Forwarding mail from @debian.org to my mailbox makes me apply
> complicated filters to stay subscribed to ML I wish.
In that case, I suggest you don't subscribe with your debian.org email
address.
> Do you confirm me it is really not wanted to pull mails from a Debian
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:19:37PM +0200, Jean-Philippe MENGUAL wrote:
> Forwarding mail from @debian.org to my mailbox makes me apply
> complicated filters to stay subscribed to ML I wish.
Why?
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On December 8, 2015 2:59:57 PM EST, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA256
>
>
>
>On 08/12/15 20:43, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> On Dec 08, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>
>>> Can anybody comment on the recommended way to allow mail
>>> forwarded from debian.org mail servers?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/12/15 20:43, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Dec 08, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>> Can anybody comment on the recommended way to allow mail
>> forwarded from debian.org mail servers?
> You whitelist them from your SPF checks, because SPF is the kind o
On Dec 08, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> Can anybody comment on the recommended way to allow mail forwarded from
> debian.org mail servers?
You whitelist them from your SPF checks, because SPF is the kind of
FUSSP which requires the whole Internet to modify their servers to
support forwarding.
--
ci
35 matches
Mail list logo
