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."
"
32 matches
Mail list logo
