On 10/19/2017 09:14 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote:
>
> RFC 6377 - DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) and Mailing Lists,
> disagrees with you. (RFC 6377 is also currently known as BCP 167.)
I am too tired at the moment to respond to your posts more completely. I
may do so tomorrow. But
On 10/19/2017 10:14 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote:
/The output of a resending MLM is/ *a new message*.
...
*The resending MLM is the author* /of the new message/.
Since the MLM is the author of the new message, I think it would be
prudent to use either of the following as the RFC5
On 10/19/2017 09:15 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
I think that won't happen. The use of p=none subdomains by various
entities that publish p=reject for their primary domain is intended for
addresses for their own staff to use in communicating via mailing lists
and perhaps other channels. If a freemail p
On 10/19/2017 12:37 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
The IETF has NO position on WHEN this should be done because it's not
relevant to interoperability. My personal reasoning with respect to
mailing list managers like Mailman which normally pass through all
text/plain, and perhaps add some tags
On 10/18/2017 11:50 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
This is the crux of our disagreement. The outbound message is still the
original author's message, albeit slightly altered by subject prefixing,
content filtering and/or other transformations to conform with list
policies. I don't agree that it is a co
On 10/19/2017 04:07 AM, William Bagwell wrote:
>
> So if enough users of Yahoo and AOL requested something such as
> u...@list.aol.com to not be DMARC p=reject they /might/ listen?
I think that won't happen. The use of p=none subdomains by various
entities that publish p=reject for their primar
On Thursday 19 October 2017, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> As Mark says, they should use an @sysadmins.irs.gov address or
> something like that, which would have its own p=none policy. Note
> that this has been already standard practice at Yahoo! (!), AOL (!!),
> LinkedIn, and several banks that pa
On 2017-10-19 01:36, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
(I don't understand Dimitri's claim about SourceForge ads; all the
mail I get from SourceForge is originated there and AFAIK the DKIM
validates. If it doesn't, their system is pretty brain-damaged.)
It is, but not DKIM-drain-bramaged. I PGP-sign
