www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Y! DMARC solution preferences
Date Sun, 01 Jun 2014 23:18:31 GMT
This list strips text/html attachments for example, which would need to stop.



On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:17 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
 

>
>
>On 2 June 2014 00:04, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> board@, members@, infrastructure@, dev@httpd are fine as-is.
>> About half of them need no changes, but many of those
>> that do are public, like this list.
>>
>
>I cannot say I have noticed a difference between infra and infra-dev.
>What are that infra-dev feature(s) that would need to be dropped?
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:01 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1 June 2014 23:52, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> Talking to a few people about this privately, it seems that
>>> there is a perception that munging Y! From headers is the
>>> least invasive option of the two.
>>>
>>> But this is a brand-spanking new issue and it's hard to gauge
>>> how service providers will react.  Y! could step back, or others
>>> could step on board.  The only real future-proof option is to
>>> change list configs to no longer alter content or headers, but
>>> I want to let the community weigh in on their preferences before
>>> taking action.
>>>
>>
>> Are there examples of lists that don't change headers/content that we
>> can look at?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 5:28 PM, Joe Schaefer
>>> <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If there are any questions or comments about this issue,
>>>>let's place them on this thread.
>>>>
>>>>The underlying issue is that in about mid-April Yahoo! (and now AOL)
>>>>changed their DNS-advertised DMARC policy for their domain to REJECT
>>>> messages that fail the DMARC tests (revolving around SPF and DKIM).  SPF
is
>>>>a non-issue for us currently, but DKIM is because it's a signed hash of
>>>> various headers and the message body itself- things which some of our lists
>>>> are configured to alter by choice.
>>>>
>>>>What the POLL offers is a choice of redress plan: either we can munge Y!
>>> >From addresses to avoid their DMARC policy check, or we can reconfigure
>>>>our lists not to alter the message in any way.  It looks like Y! is
>>>> committed
>>>>to this policy change so the onus is on us, if we still want to ensure Y!
>>>> users'
>>>>messages are deliverable to us, to change how we operate roughly 50% of
>>>>our available lists.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Sunday, June 1, 2014 12:24 PM, Joe Schaefer
>>>> <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Everyone is welcome to participate in this poll as
>>>>>it affects a wide cross-section of the org.  Please
>>>>>cast your vote on one of the following 2 choices:
>>>>>
>>>>>[ ] - enable Y! "From" and "DKIM-Signature" header munging,
>>>>>      impacting only Y! mailing list authors in a minimal way
>>>>>      (see THIS MESSAGE's headers for actual details of the changes)
>>>>>
>>>>>[ ] - change configurations to "-FXT", disabling all message munging
>>>>>      for everyone equally
>>>>>
>>>>>See corresponding discussion on infrastructure@
>>>>>for details of affected lists and more information
>>>>>on the choices available.  Thx.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message