We've noticed that with DMARC moderation set to "Wrap Message", the
rewritten header doesn't preserve the original addressee list. In the
particular case that I'm looking at right now, the list address itself
is removed from the Cc header. We've had a few complaints that this
results in responses
We have DMARC "munge from" configured on all mailing lists on
lists.freebsd.org.
This week, I learned that one of our lists is not actually munging
though.
I've done a `config_list -o` and compared the output to a list that does
munge correctly and I'm not seeing anything that would explain
On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 20:21, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> On 5/21/19 6:41 AM, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
> >
> > Ah, I see. I think that would be worth calling out in the documentation.
> > I think the way it's currently written strongly implies that it will
> bring
> > all lists up to a minimum behaviour
On 5/21/19 6:41 AM, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
>
> Ah, I see. I think that would be worth calling out in the documentation.
> I think the way it's currently written strongly implies that it will bring
> all lists up to a minimum behaviour.
I have updated that text. It now says:
> # Default action
On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 11:35, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> On 5/19/19 1:13 PM, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
> > I've got a mailman 2.1.26 install I've taken over. I've attempted to
> turn
> > on DMARC message wrapping by setting DEFAULT_DMARC_MODERATION_ACTION in
> my
> > mm_cfg.py file, but it doesn't seem
On 5/19/19 1:13 PM, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
> I've got a mailman 2.1.26 install I've taken over. I've attempted to turn
> on DMARC message wrapping by setting DEFAULT_DMARC_MODERATION_ACTION in my
> mm_cfg.py file, but it doesn't seem to have had the desired effect. I'm
> still seeing messages fr
I've got a mailman 2.1.26 install I've taken over. I've attempted to turn
on DMARC message wrapping by setting DEFAULT_DMARC_MODERATION_ACTION in my
mm_cfg.py file, but it doesn't seem to have had the desired effect. I'm
still seeing messages from p=reject domains going out with their original
he
Hi,
That did the trick, thanks!
Jayson
On 11/14/2018 6:09 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
On 11/14/18 2:35 PM, Jayson Smith wrote:
Hi,
The error in /var/lib/mailman/log/error is as follows:
Nov 14 10:24:29 2018 (1063) DNS lookup for dmarc_moderation_action for
list (Redacted) not available
That sa
On 11/14/18 2:35 PM, Jayson Smith wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The error in /var/lib/mailman/log/error is as follows:
>
> Nov 14 10:24:29 2018 (1063) DNS lookup for dmarc_moderation_action for
> list (Redacted) not available
That says Mailman couldn't import dns.resolver.
You need to have the dnspython pa
Hi,
The error in /var/lib/mailman/log/error is as follows:
Nov 14 10:24:29 2018 (1063) DNS lookup for dmarc_moderation_action for
list (Redacted) not available
I recently upgraded a lot of packages on my Debian system. I compiled
Mailman from source since Debian didn't have the version I wan
On 11/14/18 11:53 AM, Jayson Smith wrote:
>
> Did my server fail to retrieve the DMARC information for AOL for some
> transient reason, or could there be another problem? I have double
> checked that the list is set to munge the From: of such messages, but it
> didn't this time.
What's in Mailma
Hi all,
I have a weird one. This morning an AOL user posted to one of my lists.
Normally this is no problem, since I have the list in question set to
munge the From: of messages from problematic domains (AOL, Yahoo, etc).
For some reason it didn't work this time. Naturally, I received bounce
On 7/19/17 9:13 AM, Kevin Nowaczyk via Mailman-Users wrote:
I've recently been hearing that some subscribers to a club mailing list who use gmail are having
all messages pushed to their spam folder. One user said it's only an issue when the sender is a
gmail user as well. I'm running mailman 2.
On 07/19/2017 06:13 AM, Kevin Nowaczyk via Mailman-Users wrote:
> ... dmarc_none_moderation_action is No. ...
> After changing to "Munge From" it still has a DMARC fail. What are the
> differences that I should be seeing after changing the
> dmarc_moderation_action? Here is an authentication head
Hi Kevin
GMAIL is a problem itself. On another mailing list (which is not a
Mailman list and I am not a moderator or something like that), messages
seem even to be held back by GMAIL and not delivered at all to the
subscribers.
I am not sure whether a GMAIL user can "educate" the mail server to n
I've recently been hearing that some subscribers to a club mailing list who use
gmail are having all messages pushed to their spam folder. One user said it's
only an issue when the sender is a gmail user as well. I'm running mailman
2.1.23 and had dmarc_moderation_action set to the default value
Mark Sapiro writes:
> > Our configuration is that our web site integration with PayPal has PayPal
> > sending confirmation emails to a mailman list called treasurer-alias, so
> > that multiple people are aware of the PayPal transaction.
>
> PayPal.com publishes DMARC p=reject. Your treasurer
On 03/16/2017 06:20 AM, Terry Lund wrote:
> We are getting the following error for one of our users in one of our
> mailman lists. I've tried to figure out if one of the configuration options
> in Privacy Rules can be used to address this issue, but I am afraid I am
> not real clear on the implicat
We are getting the following error for one of our users in one of our
mailman lists. I've tried to figure out if one of the configuration options
in Privacy Rules can be used to address this issue, but I am afraid I am
not real clear on the implications of the relevent DMARC related
parameters. Any
On 11/23/2016 08:53 AM, Matt Morgan wrote:
>
> I understand that my choices for fixing this are either from_is_list or
> anonymous_list, and since this is an old server (2.1.12) that I recently
> took over (I have to stop using that excuse soon, I know), I can't do
> from_is_list.
Actually, in 2
On one of our lists, we are recently getting a lot of bounces related to
AOL's DMARC policy. We're probably getting them on all our lists, actually,
it's just that this list had a pretty stiff bounce-disabling config, so we
noticed it more there.
I understand that my choices for fixing this are ei
(catching up on mail)
Mark Sapiro writes:
> possibly also setting dmarc_quarantine_moderation_action to Yes
If you use the dmarc_* settings, I recommend doing this.
"p=quarantine" is not very common as far as I know, but (1) sites like
GMail[1] do not promote "quarantine" to "safe", so mail *w
On 07/15/2016 05:22 PM, Richard Johnson wrote:
> This is described as:
>
>> Action to take when anyone posts to the list from a domain with a
>> DMARC Reject/Quarantine Policy.
>
> but the problem I'm getting is:
>
> https://help.yahoo.com/kb/postmaster/SLN7253.html
>
> which seems to be caused
This is described as:
> Action to take when anyone posts to the list from a domain with a DMARC
> Reject/Quarantine Policy.
but the problem I'm getting is:
https://help.yahoo.com/kb/postmaster/SLN7253.html
which seems to be caused by the "From" address not matching the domain name
wince the m
On 07/15/2016 03:15 PM, Richard Johnson wrote:
> I have now upgraded to 2.1.22. Thanks!
And in 2.1.22, dmarc_moderation_action is generally preferable to
from_is_list because it is only applied to those post that need it.
See Privacy options... -> Sender filters
--
Mark Sapiro The hig
I have now upgraded to 2.1.22. Thanks!
/raj
> On Jul 15, 2016, at 2:37 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
>
> On 07/15/2016 01:45 PM, Richard Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> In 2.1.16 a from_is_list feature was implemented ...
>
>> I'm running 2.1.17 and the only thing I see which seems related to this is
>> th
On 07/15/2016 01:45 PM, Richard Johnson wrote:
>
>> In 2.1.16 a from_is_list feature was implemented ...
> I'm running 2.1.17 and the only thing I see which seems related to this is
> the "anonymous list" option under General Options. Is this what's being
> referred to here, or is there some o
I've been running a number of mailing lists for quite a while and never noticed
any problems until I setup one which has some yahoo and hotmail addresses on
it. Now I have to deal with the DMARC problem. :(
Looking at:
https://wiki.list.org/DEV/DMARC
I see it says:
> In 2.1.16 a from_is_lis
Mark Sapiro writes:
> There have been workarounds for this issue since 2.1.16, but they didn't
> get serious until 2.1.18 and have seen continuous tweaking since
> then.
In other words, Mark is too modest. Get 2.1.latest (.20, I think?),
'cause Maintainer Markie kicks a--!
Technically, he's
On 4/13/16 11:22 AM, Ricardo Kleemann wrote:
>
> I've started noticing bounces to yahoo and hotmail users with this
> rejection message:
>
> Unfortunately, messages from (xxx) on behalf of (yahoo.com.br) could not
> be delivered due to domain owner policy restrictions. (in reply to end of
> DATA
Hi,
I've started noticing bounces to yahoo and hotmail users with this
rejection message:
Unfortunately, messages from (xxx) on behalf of (yahoo.com.br) could not
be delivered due to domain owner policy restrictions. (in reply to end of
DATA command))
In researching this problem I found this th
On 05/28/2015 08:25 AM, Allan Hansen wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> You’re right. AOL does not accept these messages with ‘invalid’ at the end.
>
> You’re recommending this:
>
>name, addr = parseadder(msg.get('from'))
>if addr.endswith('aol.com') or addr.endswith('yahoo.com'):
># I for
Hi Stephen,
You’re right. AOL does not accept these messages with ‘invalid’ at the end.
You’re recommending this:
name, addr = parseadder(msg.get('from'))
if addr.endswith('aol.com') or addr.endswith('yahoo.com'):
# I forget what happens if it's a bare address
name = "%s (%s)
On 05/24/2015 03:19 PM, Allan Hansen wrote:
>
> $ host -t TXT _dmarc.btopenworld.com
> _dmarc.btopenworld.com descriptive text "v=DMARC1\; p=none\; fo=1\;
> rua=mailto:dmarc...@btinternet.com, mailto:dmarc_...@auth.returnpath.net\;";
The domain publishes DMARC p=none. Thus, no ISP should treat
I wonder why then I got a bunch of issues with btopenworld.com, which
apparently is Yahoo based.
I just checked btopenworld.com with the ‘host’ command and as you say, it has
no ‘reject’:
$ host -t TXT _dmarc.btopenworld.com
_dmarc.btopenworld.com descriptive text "v=DMARC1\; p=none\; fo=1\;
ru
Allan Hansen writes:
> Checking for aol.com and yahoo.com here alone will not work. I have
> a bunch of other subscribers that have accounts with providers
> that are owned by Yahoo (mostly) and AOL, but whose addresses are
> not of this form.
Oddly enough, it turns out that they only use DM
Hi Stephen,
Yes, there is a good reason. I’m using Mailman as it came with the OS X Server
and am not prepared to replace it. Also, Mailman no longer comes pre-installed
on the Apple platform, so I’m basically stuck. This is why I tried the simplest
hack I could find. I have 44 busy lists and I
Allan Hansen wrote:
>Stephen,
>Much appreciated.
>Checking for aol.com and yahoo.com here alone will not work. I have a bunch of
>other subscribers that have accounts with providers that are owned by Yahoo
>(mostly) and AOL, but whose addresses are not of this form.
>I would have to do this fo
Stephen,
Much appreciated.
Checking for aol.com and yahoo.com here alone will not work. I have a bunch of
other subscribers that have
accounts with providers that are owned by Yahoo (mostly) and AOL, but whose
addresses are not of this form.
I would have to do this for all addresses, to be safe
Allan Hansen writes:
> 69,74d68
> <
> < # Added to deal with DMARC issuej
> < name, addrs = parseaddr(msg.get('from'))
> < addrs += '.invalid'
This is known to be a bad idea, as it increases the spam score at many
sites (because the author's mail domain doesn't resolve). Su
Never mind - it started working. I just had to leave the house and come back.
Mayby the issues at work can be done that way, too. :-)
Allan
Hi,
I have waited almost a year for AOL and Yahoo to admit that they messed up and
to remove their DMARC policy. My AOL and Yahoo subscribers are pretty
On 05/23/2015 02:45 PM, Allan Hansen wrote:
>
> So against my better judgement, I included this hack in Cleanse.py;
>
> 22c22
> < from email.Utils import formataddr, parseaddr
> —
>>from email.Utils import formataddr
>
> 69,74d68
> <
> < # Added to deal with DMARC issuej
> < name, a
Hi,
I have waited almost a year for AOL and Yahoo to admit that they messed up and
to remove their DMARC policy. My AOL and Yahoo subscribers are pretty upset at
me because I won’t let them post. A number now have two subscriptions, one for
posting (from GMail) and another for receiving the mes
On 04/22/2015 10:29 PM, Fil wrote:
> Hello,
>
> just upgraded from 2.1.16 to 2.1.20, because I was fed up with the DMARC
> issue. I googled a bit and found http://wiki.list.org/DEV/DMARC but it
> lacks info, especially:
The wiki page is only intended to describe in general terms what is
availabl
> > > 1) how to add a default value in mm_cfg.py
> > > from the release notes I guess it's something like
> > > DEFAULT_DMARC_MODERATION_ACTION = 1 # Munge
> > >
> >
> > just to be clear: this line doesn't seem to bring anything to
> > exiting lists, which behave normal unless I go and set
Fil writes:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Fil wrote:
>
> > 1) how to add a default value in mm_cfg.py
> > from the release notes I guess it's something like
> > DEFAULT_DMARC_MODERATION_ACTION = 1 # Munge
> >
>
> just to be clear: this line doesn't seem to bring anything to
> exiti
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Fil wrote:
> 1) how to add a default value in mm_cfg.py
> from the release notes I guess it's something like
> DEFAULT_DMARC_MODERATION_ACTION = 1 # Munge
>
just to be clear: this line doesn't seem to bring anything to exiting
lists, which behave normal unless I
Hello,
just upgraded from 2.1.16 to 2.1.20, because I was fed up with the DMARC
issue. I googled a bit and found http://wiki.list.org/DEV/DMARC but it
lacks info, especially:
1) how to add a default value in mm_cfg.py
from the release notes I guess it's something like
DEFAULT_DMARC_MODERATION_ACT
On Sat, 2015-04-04 at 12:10 -0700, JB wrote:
> I can hardly believe I actually followed that whole post start to end!
> Thanks Mark.
You might find the full discussion last spring of the DMARC issue both
understandable and helpful. It went on for quite a while and a lot of
very relevant points go
I can hardly believe I actually followed that whole post start to end! Thanks
Mark.
On Sat, 4/4/15, Mark Sapiro wrote:
Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] DMARC mitigation - was: Templates
To: mailman-users@python.org
Date: Saturday, April 4, 2015, 1:38
On 04/04/2015 09:59 AM, Laura Creighton wrote:
>
> ps -- anybody know why all mail I see from people on yahoo.com (including JB
> here) arrives to me as from yahoo.com.dmarc.invalid.
>
> It very much seems to be a python.org thing, but, ah, why is python.org
> seeing fit to add this stuff?
It's
I've gotten a dozen or more similar phishing messages. Shows how effective
DMARC is - NOT
Regards
Larry
Sent from my iPad
> On Jun 24, 2014, at 9:51 PM, "Barry S. Finkel" wrote:
>
> I have in one of my mailboxes a scam from June 10 that has
>
> From: Chase Notification
>
> In the web M
Ron Guerin writes:
> I would really like to do, as someone said earlier, just say "Friends
> don't let Friends use Yahoo or AOL Mail." But count me in with those
> expecting Gmail to be next. That's nearly half the subscribers of the
> list I've been asking in regard to.
I think GMail would
I have in one of my mailboxes a scam from June 10 that has
From: Chase Notification
In the web MUA I use for this account, only the display name
Chase Notification
is shown on the screen as the sender. DMARC obviously will not
help in this case. I have no idea if the scammers are
On 6/21/2014 8:24 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> On 06/21/2014 04:04 PM, Ron Guerin wrote:
>> I'm struggling to find a palatable solution to the configuration of a
>> list, and the new Yahoo-style DMARC problem.
>>
>> The list has mung on, as well as Reply-To: set to the list. The end
>> result is nowhe
>> Yahoo Groups also add something like this in a footer:
>> "Posted by: a real name a-n...@a-domain.co.uk"
>> and a series of mailto links below that for replying to the original sender
>> or to the group.
>
>Well, won't this break DKIM?
Yes, but if it also takes the real author address out of t
Bjoern Franke writes:
> Am Sonntag, den 22.06.2014, 13:33 +1000 schrieb Peter Shute:
> > Yahoo Groups also add something like this in a footer:
> > "Posted by: a real name a-n...@a-domain.co.uk"
> > and a series of mailto links below that for replying to the original
> > sender or to the grou
On 6/22/14, 8:12 AM, Bjoern Franke wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 22.06.2014, 13:33 +1000 schrieb Peter Shute:
Yahoo Groups also add something like this in a footer:
"Posted by: a real name a-n...@a-domain.co.uk"
and a series of mailto links below that for replying to the original sender or
to the grou
Am Sonntag, den 22.06.2014, 13:33 +1000 schrieb Peter Shute:
> Yahoo Groups also add something like this in a footer:
> "Posted by: a real name a-n...@a-domain.co.uk"
> and a series of mailto links below that for replying to the original sender
> or to the group.
Well, won't this break DKIM?
Reg
Yahoo Groups also add something like this in a footer:
"Posted by: a real name a-n...@a-domain.co.uk"
and a series of mailto links below that for replying to the original sender or
to the group.
I find the former useful for telling who sent the message, because my iPad only
displays the list add
On 22/06/2014 00:04, Ron Guerin wrote:
> I'm struggling to find a palatable solution to the configuration of a
> list, and the new Yahoo-style DMARC problem.
>
> The list has mung on, as well as Reply-To: set to the list. The end
> result is nowhere does the original sender's address appear in th
Ron Guerin writes:
> Jane Doe (j...@example.com) via listname
>
> My question now is, is there any reason why re-writing it this way
> would be a bad idea?
First, the DMARC proponents themselves say "don't do that!" (Mostly
for the reasons given below.)
Second, it disrespects the wis
On 06/21/2014 04:04 PM, Ron Guerin wrote:
> I'm struggling to find a palatable solution to the configuration of a
> list, and the new Yahoo-style DMARC problem.
>
> The list has mung on, as well as Reply-To: set to the list. The end
> result is nowhere does the original sender's address appear in
>I was wondering about asking someone to make a Mailman handler that
>would re-write the From: address after munging to:
>
>From: Jane Doe (j...@example.com) via listname
>
>My question now is, is there any reason why re-writing it this way would
>be a bad idea?
Well, of course, it's a bad idea f
I'm struggling to find a palatable solution to the configuration of a
list, and the new Yahoo-style DMARC problem.
The list has mung on, as well as Reply-To: set to the list. The end
result is nowhere does the original sender's address appear in the
messages, when having them readily visible is t
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
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 have ALLOW_FROM_IS_LIST = Yes in mm_c
Mark Sapiro writes:
> On 05/12/2014 01:25 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >
> > How about multipart/alternative:
> >
> > message header
> > multipart/alternative
> >
> > part header
> > message/rfc822# original message in all its glory
> >
> >
On 05/12/2014 01:25 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>
> How about multipart/alternative:
>
> message header
> multipart/alternative
>
> part header
> message/rfc822# original message in all its glory
>
> part header
>
Interesting idea, but I thi
On 05/09/2014 07:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> But the wrapped message could pass the DMARC DKIM signature check, if it
> will exactly matchs the message that came from Yahoo/AOL. (which the
> phish won't). This says that the List Headers, modified subject, list
> headers and footers should be add
Richard Damon writes:
> On 5/9/14, 10:13 PM, John Levine wrote:
> > The correct response is either for senders to stop publishing DMARC
> > policies that don't match the way their users use mail (fat chance),
> > or for recipient systems to skip the DMARC checks on mail from sources
> > that
Lindsay Haisley writes:
> A nice fix, albeit probably total pie-in-the-sky, would be the
> establishment of a MIME Content-Type: multipart/list-post, a variation
> on (or extension of) mulpart/mixed. MUAs SHOULD (in the RFC 2119 sense)
> effectively hide the outermost enclosing MIME envelope
On 5/9/14, 10:13 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> Arguably, the correct response to DMARC filtering _should_ be the MIME
>> encapsulation of list mail, with appropriate RFC 2369 headers added to
>> the enclosing MIME structure leaving the content un-munged, with all
>> information from the original poster
>Arguably, the correct response to DMARC filtering _should_ be the MIME
>encapsulation of list mail, with appropriate RFC 2369 headers added to
>the enclosing MIME structure leaving the content un-munged, with all
>information from the original poster intact. Arguably, MUAs should be
>transparent
On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 04:01 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Lindsay Haisley writes:
>
> > What goes into an address comment is, or should be, purely
> > informational on a human level, and ignored on a computational
> > level.
>
> Unfortunately, we can't depend on that:
The operational te
Lindsay Haisley writes:
> What goes into an address comment is, or should be, purely
> informational on a human level, and ignored on a computational
> level.
Unfortunately, we can't depend on that:
There are a few possible mechanisms that attempt mitigation of
[display name] attacks, s
On Thu, 2014-05-08 at 15:42 -0400, Glenn Sieb wrote:
> If I felt what my users were asking for was unreasonable, I wouldn't
> have bothered to bring it here. They'd *like* to see who's posting so if
> they *choose* to reply privately they can. In the past, this was easy
> enough. The From: line was
Glenn Sieb writes:
> Then please work on your phrasing.
That times time and effort, which I will start saving right now.
--
Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ:
On 05/08/2014 12:42 PM, Glenn Sieb wrote:
>
> In the past, this was easy
> enough. The From: line was there with the OP's email address. Now, as
> far as I can tell, depending on the MUA the *poster* uses, there *might*
> be two Reply-Tos--one with the OP email, one with the list address. But
> th
It is not necessary to cc: me. I get list emails. Emails can go to the
list, unless you wish to take something private. Thank you.
On 5/7/14, 10:36 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> If you just want to vent, please say so. I thought you were asking
> for help.
Then please work on your phrasing. Y
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Joseph Brennan writes:
> >
> > "Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
> >
> > > > Honestly, they (one of the principal DMARC spec authors works for
> > > > Yahoo) ignored their own advice, imagine how well that would go
> > > > over in
Joseph Brennan writes:
>
> "Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
>
> > > Honestly, they (one of the principal DMARC spec authors works for
> > > Yahoo) ignored their own advice, imagine how well that would go
> > > over in some other industries.
I didn't write that, and I dissent from the impli
"Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
> Honestly, they (one of the principal DMARC spec authors works for
> Yahoo) ignored their own advice, imagine how well that would go
> over in some other industries.
Let's not overlook Agari, which has a financial stake in offering a
solution to the problem
Jim Popovitch writes:
> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> > We are trying to talk with DMARC proponents,
>
> You won't be successful until those people themselves figure out what
> they are doing
That's true, but those folks (or, more accurately, their bosses) have
their
Glenn Sieb writes:
> What my list owners want out of my lists, and what rules they
> decide on for their lists, is not my business. By extension, it is
> not yours.
If you just want to vent, please say so. I thought you were asking
for help.
If you want help, then the questions I asked are e
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> We are trying to talk with DMARC proponents,
You won't be successful until those people themselves figure out what
they are doing (and then they agree to quit using the Internet as a
testbed) :-) Honestly, they (one of the principal DMARC sp
On 05/07/2014 12:45 PM, Glenn Sieb wrote:
>
> It's ridiculous. And I want to know why, exactly, Yahoo Groups isn't
> being affected by this. They're not doing the "via YahooGroup" bit, or
> wrapping their mails. :-\ I'm betting they're not even honoring the
> DMARC from other providers.
Yahoo gr
On 5/7/14, 12:08 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> What is the intent of the restriction? Are you trying to get the
> users to use "reply to author" by punishing them with a black hole if
> they don't, and then set Reply-To to list-post so that nobody ever
> gets a personal reply? Or is this inten
Glenn Sieb writes:
> So I updated to 2.1.18-1 today. Now we have a Reply-To that has the
> poster's email and the list's email address.
>
> A few of the lists I run block emails with more than one recipient, so
> now this is going to be an adventure. (Ok, more like a nightmare, as
> right n
On May 06, 2014, at 05:17 PM, Glenn Sieb wrote:
>Fair enough. So, basically I'm fsck'd. Set the lists to be
>"anonymous_list" or set an explicit reply-to to be the lists and hope
>that strips out the extraneous reply-to entry.
Yes, and sadly it's forced on us by external policies.
I must admit t
On 05/06/2014 02:52 PM, Russell Clemings wrote:
> Is the existing change (making sure the poster's address is in the
> reply-to) available in a patch? I checked launchpad but if it's there I
> couldn't find it. I'd like to see if I can apply it to 2.1.17 while
> waiting for cPanel to upgrade to 2.1
Is the existing change (making sure the poster's address is in the
reply-to) available in a patch? I checked launchpad but if it's there I
couldn't find it. I'd like to see if I can apply it to 2.1.17 while waiting
for cPanel to upgrade to 2.1.18.
FWIW, I'd vote against a rollback to the earlier b
On 05/06/2014 02:36 PM, Glenn Sieb wrote:
> On 5/6/14, 5:31 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
>> I could always add yet another setting, but I hate that idea for
>> multiple reasons.
>>
>
> Can there be an option somewhere in between "anonymous_list" and
> "reply_goes_to_list?" One where it can strip the po
On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 14:31 -0700, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> I am willing to consider changing this, either to treat Reply-To:
> differently for Wrap Message since the original headers are in the
> wrapped message in that case, or to just go back to not adding the
> poster's address to Reply-To: as in m
On 5/6/14, 5:31 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> I went back and forth with this. Initially, if first_strip_reply_to was
> Yes and reply_goes_to_list was This list or Explicit address, I didn't
> put the poster's address in Reply-To:
>
> I finally decided it was of overriding importance to expose the post
On 05/06/2014 02:17 PM, Glenn Sieb wrote:
>
> Fair enough. So, basically I'm fsck'd. Set the lists to be
> "anonymous_list" or set an explicit reply-to to be the lists and hope
> that strips out the extraneous reply-to entry.
I went back and forth with this. Initially, if first_strip_reply_to wa
On 5/6/14, 4:29 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> Do you mean Privacy options... -> Recipient filters ->
> max_num_recipients = 2
>
> If so, ouch, but what do you do now when people reply-all to posts.
> Don't those replies get held?
Indeed. They get rejected. Policy on a couple particular lists. No cc's,
On 05/06/2014 12:47 PM, Glenn Sieb wrote:
>
> So I updated to 2.1.18-1 today. Now we have a Reply-To that has the
> poster's email and the list's email address.
>
> A few of the lists I run block emails with more than one recipient,
Do you mean Privacy options... -> Recipient filters ->
max_num
Greetings...
So I run a bunch of mailing lists, with a bunch of people who are not
technically adept whatsoever. ("I am not getting list posts! "That's
because you set yourself to no mail" "What's no mail?" "It means you set
yourself to be a member of the list, but not to get any email from it."
"
Hi,
> On 05/01/2014 08:05 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
>> On 05/01/2014 07:54 AM, Ralf Jung wrote:
>>>
>>> I just noticed that stripping reply-to headers was enabled on the list
>>> in question, and that this is not the default (as I originally thought
>>> it was - I wasn't the one who initially set up
1 - 100 of 209 matches
Mail list logo
