On 05/07/2014 05:41 PM, Peter Shute wrote:
>
> If it means that Reply vs Reply All work differently for list messages from
> different domains, will it only lead to users becoming hopelessly confused?
> Is there anyone who's already using this who could report on the reactions
> from users?
I
What Keith said. Either users are curious about this and will take the time to
understand, or they throw up their hands and “Computers!” and they will do the
minimum to get things working, which is how it was before.
My hosting provider, Dreamhost, just upgraded from 2.1.14 to 2.1.17 mere hours
My experience is that for most lists, the members are chronically confused
about nearly everything having to do with addressing. Since very few list
members are going to be subscribed from different ISPs at the same time
(and those are apt to be the most expert) I don't expect this change (when
I c
Peter Shute writes:
> If it means that Reply vs Reply All work differently for list
> messages from different domains,
It does.
> will it only lead to users becoming hopelessly confused? Is there
> anyone who's already using this who could report on the reactions
> from users?
Good questio
Peter Shute writes:
> So does this mean that any solution is going to be a choice between
> ease of replying to the list and ease of accidental replying to the
> list?
Yes, and that's an unsolvable problem. Some replies should be public,
some should be private, and only the user can know whic
Mark Sapiro wrote:
> > Am I correct in believing that there is now an option to
> have these modified behaviours only apply to messages from
> p=reject senders?
>
>
> Yes. At least in the latest release (2.1.18-1), there is
> dmarc_moderation_action which selects an action to apply only
> to
On 05/07/2014 01:34 PM, Peter Shute wrote:
>
> Am I correct in believing that there is now an option to have these modified
> behaviours only apply to messages from p=reject senders?
Yes. At least in the latest release (2.1.18-1), there is
dmarc_moderation_action which selects an action to appl
> On 7 May 2014, at 11:59 pm, "Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
>
> Peter Shute writes:
>
>> Thanks, I understand now. If the result of this is that replies go
>> to everyone on the list, this is something we don't want for our
>> list. Private replies becoming public means trouble, and we have
>> en
On May 7, 2014, at 9:56 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Because personalization can consume a lot of resources, the site admin
> needs to enable personalization with OWNERS_CAN_ENABLE_PERSONALIZATION
> in mm_cfg.py, then it will show up on the admin site.
Thanks. Impressive.
--
Rob Lingelba
Rob Lingelbach writes:
> Is it possible the ‘personalize’ option moved elsewhere in
> 2.1.18-1? I’ve just updated to that version and don’t see it on
> the Nondigest Options page.
Sorry, I haven't updated to 2.1.18-1 yet, I'm reading source and
missed a crucial qualification at the top of the
On May 7, 2014, at 8:59 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> which leaves the "Reply-To" header as it finds it. Finally, set
>
>'personalize' to 'Full Personalization'
>
> which puts the recipient in "To". The first two are on the General
> Options page, the last on the Nondigest Options pag
Peter Shute writes:
> Thanks, I understand now. If the result of this is that replies go
> to everyone on the list, this is something we don't want for our
> list. Private replies becoming public means trouble, and we have
> enough of it already when people Reply All by accident.
In that case
> On 7 May 2014, at 4:07 pm, "Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
>
> Peter Shute writes:
>>
>> Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>>
>>> The DMARC WG advocates putting list-post in "From" in place
>>> of a DMARC p=reject address. I advocate accepting their
>>> advice for stock Mailman, and avoiding other n
Peter Shute writes:
>
> Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>
> > The DMARC WG advocates putting list-post in "From" in place
> > of a DMARC p=reject address. I advocate accepting their
> > advice for stock Mailman, and avoiding other non-conforming
> > workarounds until the market demands them
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> The DMARC WG advocates putting list-post in "From" in place
> of a DMARC p=reject address. I advocate accepting their
> advice for stock Mailman, and avoiding other non-conforming
> workarounds until the market demands them. If it gets noisy,
> feel free to cave
Barry Warsaw writes:
> On May 06, 2014, at 02:15 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>
> >No, the point is that a phishing mail with
> >
> >From: Chase Bank Customer Service
> >
> >will sail right past DMARC, as currently set up.
>
> So too will serv...@chase.com.ru without Mailman ever
"Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
No, the point is that a phishing mail with
From: Chase Bank Customer Service
will sail right past DMARC, as currently set up
It will sail past people using modern mail clients, too, by which I include
web mail and Outlook, since those people will see som
On May 06, 2014, at 02:15 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>No, the point is that a phishing mail with
>
>From: Chase Bank Customer Service
>
>will sail right past DMARC, as currently set up.
So too will serv...@chase.com.ru without Mailman ever getting involved, and I
bet that will be just as
I understand now, fake warnings for phishing. As for not being taken in, I
haven't yet, but I'm sure it would be possible to create one that I would
assume to be genuine.
Peter Shute
Sent from my iPad
> On 6 May 2014, at 3:15 pm, "Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
>
> Peter Shute writes:
>>> On 5
Peter Shute writes:
> > On 5 May 2014, at 4:59 pm, "Stephen J. Turnbull"
> > wrote:
> > them. But when you (FVO "you" susceptible to phishing in the first
> Sorry, what does FVO stand for?
Ah, excuse my abbreviations. FVO = "for values of"; the intended
implication is that the "you" read
>> I'm on lots of lists with Paypal employees, who consistently use
>> paypal-inc.com addresses, specicially to avoid DMARC problems.
>
>$ dig +short -t txt _dmarc.paypal-inc.com
>"v=DMARC1\; p=reject\; rua=mailto:d...@rua.agari.com\;
>ruf=mailto:d...@bounce.paypal.com,mailto:d...@ruf.agari.com";
>$ dig +short -t txt _dmarc.paypal.com
>"v=DMARC1\; p=reject\; rua=mailto:d...@rua.agari.com\;
>ruf=mailto:d...@bounce.paypal.com,mailto:d...@ruf.agari.com";
I'm on lots of lists with Paypal employees, who consistently use
paypal-inc.com addresses, specicially to avoid DMARC problems.
They reali
On Mon, 05 May 2014 09:24:59 +0100, Peter Shute wrote:
They get a warning? I thought it just bounced, and the intended
recipient never knew.
That was how I (thought I) understood it but I have heard of mailman
distributed messages from AOL & Yahoo addresses being put into spam rather
tha
> On 5 May 2014, at 4:59 pm, "Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
>
> Peter Shute writes:
>
>> How does Yahoo's DMARC policy reduce the benefit of Paypal's?
>> Because servers can't follow the reject recommendation without
>
> No, it's because users get used to ignoring warnings about DMARC
> issues.
Peter Shute writes:
> How does Yahoo's DMARC policy reduce the benefit of Paypal's?
> Because servers can't follow the reject recommendation without
No, it's because users get used to ignoring warnings about DMARC
issues. If it was *only* your bank, you'd learn to pay attention to
them. But w
Lindsay Haisley writes:
> $ dig +short -t txt _dmarc.paypal.com
> "v=DMARC1\; p=reject\; rua=mailto:d...@rua.agari.com\;
> ruf=mailto:d...@bounce.paypal.com,mailto:d...@ruf.agari.com";
>
> This probably is a problem of lesser magnitude than Yahoo! and AOL
FWIW, I don't consider it a "probl
Larry Finch wrote:
> This is probably the first actual practical application of
> DMARC p=reject that I have seen. Unfortunately, Yahoo's and
> AOL's abuse of DMARC will tend to neutralize the benefit of
> DMARC to financial institutions who have a really serious
> spoofing problem.
How does
On Sun, 2014-05-04 at 20:58 +, John Levine wrote:
> >$ dig +short -t txt _dmarc.paypal.com
> >"v=DMARC1\; p=reject\; rua=mailto:d...@rua.agari.com\;
> >ruf=mailto:d...@bounce.paypal.com,mailto:d...@ruf.agari.com";
>
> I'm on lots of lists with Paypal employees, who consistently use
> paypal-i
On Sun, 2014-05-04 at 16:14 -0400, Larry Finch wrote:
>
> On May 4, 2014, at 4:07 PM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
>
> > $ dig +short -t txt _dmarc.paypal.com
> > "v=DMARC1\; p=reject\; rua=mailto:d...@rua.agari.com\;
> > ruf=mailto:d...@bounce.paypal.com,mailto:d...@ruf.agari.com";
> >
> > This pro
On May 4, 2014, at 4:07 PM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> $ dig +short -t txt _dmarc.paypal.com
> "v=DMARC1\; p=reject\; rua=mailto:d...@rua.agari.com\;
> ruf=mailto:d...@bounce.paypal.com,mailto:d...@ruf.agari.com";
>
> This probably is a problem of lesser magnitude than Yahoo! and AOL since
> fe
$ dig +short -t txt _dmarc.paypal.com
"v=DMARC1\; p=reject\; rua=mailto:d...@rua.agari.com\;
ruf=mailto:d...@bounce.paypal.com,mailto:d...@ruf.agari.com";
This probably is a problem of lesser magnitude than Yahoo! and AOL since
few list posts will come from PayPal, or be delivered to such an addr
31 matches
Mail list logo
