On 26/05/2014 07:24, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> John Levine writes:
>
> > This is one of the most annoying things about Yahoo and AOL's misuse
> > of DMARC -- they're practically forcing people to use hacks to show
> > unauthenticated fake From: lines.
>
> Not only that, they're doing it the
John Levine writes:
> This is one of the most annoying things about Yahoo and AOL's misuse
> of DMARC -- they're practically forcing people to use hacks to show
> unauthenticated fake From: lines.
Not only that, they're doing it themselves. :-(
---
On 26/05/2014 05:46, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Richard Damon writes:
> > On 5/25/14, 11:30 AM, Mark Rousell wrote:
>
> > > Whilst Yahoo and AOL are the ones who have chosen to
> > > use/misuse/abuse DMARC in this way, it could also be said that
> > > DMARC (and all its backers on its curren
Richard Damon writes:
> On 5/25/14, 11:30 AM, Mark Rousell wrote:
> > Whilst Yahoo and AOL are the ones who have chosen to
> > use/misuse/abuse DMARC in this way, it could also be said that
> > DMARC (and all its backers on its current form) are to blame
> > precisely because DMARC *allows* Y
On 26/05/2014 03:22, John Levine wrote:
>> Until spammers figure out they can send mail
>>
>> From: spam...@evildomain.com
>> X-Original-From: whate...@yahoo.com
>
> This is one of the most annoying things about Yahoo and AOL's misuse
> of DMARC -- they're practically forcing people to use hacks t
On 26/05/2014 01:31, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> On 05/25/2014 11:31 AM, Mark Rousell wrote:
>>
>> Whilst mail client recognition of the X-Original-From header would
>> alter what users see (which is in fact a key goal in this context,
>> not a bug), DMARC would nevertheless still be effective in terms of
>Until spammers figure out they can send mail
>
>From: spam...@evildomain.com
>X-Original-From: whate...@yahoo.com
This is one of the most annoying things about Yahoo and AOL's misuse
of DMARC -- they're practically forcing people to use hacks to show
unauthenticated fake From: lines.
R's,
John
On 05/25/2014 11:31 AM, Mark Rousell wrote:
>
> Whilst mail client recognition of the X-Original-From header would alter
> what users see (which is in fact a key goal in this context, not a bug),
> DMARC would nevertheless still be effective in terms of its own design
> goals in that mail servers
>My understanding is that DMARC WAS going through the standardization
>process, and actually was to the state where experimental use was
>justified (and in some sense actually required). ...
No, not at all. DMARC was designed and implemented by a small closed
group of large companies listed on th
On 25/05/2014 19:04, Richard Damon wrote:
> I suppose that the communities response should have been to just kick
> off all Yahoo (and later AOL) users from mailing list (as that is really
> one meaning of the DMARC setting announced), but the community had too
> much compassion for the "innocent"
On 25/05/2014 18:48, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/25/14, 11:48 AM, Mark Rousell wrote:
> My view is that any attempt to have the Mail User Agent show a message
> that went through a mailing list as if it originated from the original
> poster (and only from that poster) is doomed, because the whole p
I'm honestly not sure about that. Other than the slicing, mailman is
pretty much set up with defaults. The only changes I make on the lists
is setting them so that replies only come back to the admin, not to the
entire list (they are mostly used to send notices to cell phones as text
messages
There is some load-balancing on the incoming side that splits messages
between servers, but nothing on the outgoing side. Mailman is run
directly on each of the SMTP servers. I started doing the slicing
awhile back when I was having trouble with mailman crashing
occasionally, and wanted to ad
On 05/25/2014 11:07 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> Could your earlier tests have been done with verp or personalization
> enabled? That might have made the slicing work per recipient as the
> messages were broken up before sending.
That wouldn't do it. The VERPing or personalization is done in the
O
On 5/25/14, 11:30 AM, Mark Rousell wrote:
> (Not sent to list previously, apologies).
>
> On 25/05/2014 01:00, Richard Damon wrote:
>> The "problem" isn't DMARC, the problem is it's abuse by Yahoo and AOL.
>> These are big players, and it isn't really practical for lists to just
>> say they are bre
On 5/24/14, 9:53 PM, Jeff Taylor wrote:
> Its odd, I could have sworn the slicing used to be done per recipient,
> not per message. I've had to check logs for a client to confirm her
> messages went out, and generally had check all three machines to
> verify every user received the message.
>
> Th
On 25/05/2014 18:27, Peter Shute wrote:
> I'm not comfortable with an email address in the display name not matching
> the real address. If I saw that in a non list email, it would look spammy to
> me.
I agree with you in the case of a non-list email but for a list email it
seems to me to make p
On 5/25/14, 11:48 AM, Mark Rousell wrote:
> What do you think of Yahoo Groups' From munging style and their
> X-Original-From header?
>
> Here is an example:
>
> X-Original-From: Mark Rousell
> From: "Mark Rousell ma...@signal100.com [some-mail-list]"
>
>
>
> I feel this is one of the bette
I'm not comfortable with an email address in the display name not matching the
real address. If I saw that in a non list email, it would look spammy to me.
I don't like the idea of users getting used to seeing that sort of thing as
normal, and there's the problem that lots of mail clients will o
On 05/24/2014 06:53 PM, Jeff Taylor wrote:
> Its odd, I could have sworn the slicing used to be done per recipient,
> not per message. I've had to check logs for a client to confirm her
> messages went out, and generally had check all three machines to verify
> every user received the message.
M
What do you think of Yahoo Groups' From munging style and their
X-Original-From header?
Here is an example:
X-Original-From: Mark Rousell
From: "Mark Rousell ma...@signal100.com [some-mail-list]"
I feel this is one of the better combinations of munging and new
headers. All the informa
On 24/05/2014 23:12, Allan Hansen wrote:
> The idea of using the list address as the From: address is not good.
> It hides the sender and it messes up the archives.
It seems to me that this can be mitigated in the long term if archive
software (and mail clients for that matter) can be altered to r
(Not sent to list previously, apologies).
On 25/05/2014 01:00, Richard Damon wrote:
> The "problem" isn't DMARC, the problem is it's abuse by Yahoo and AOL.
> These are big players, and it isn't really practical for lists to just
> say they are breaking the rules so we won't let them play anymore.
Ron Guerin writes:
> With great sadness, I'm trying to deal with the DMARC problem certain
> providers have decided to create for everyone else, and for some reason,
> even after turning the mung option on in the web interface, there's no
> munging going on. (wrap doesn't wrap either)
>
> I
24 matches
Mail list logo
