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 23:53:55 GMT
Check libcloud lists for the -f option and general@incubator
for -t.  Trailers (-t) are far more common than -f (Subject prefix).



On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:51 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
 

>
>
>On 2 June 2014 00:45, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> No sebb, check the list archives on people.apache.org.  The
>> difference is that you received a courtesy-copy directly from
>> me for certain messages.
>>
>
>OK I see.
>
>What about the -f and -t options?
>
>
>>
>> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:42 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 2 June 2014 00:18, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> This list strips text/html attachments for example, which would need to
>>>> stop.
>>>
>>>However, it does not _always_ seem to strip HTML multipart sections.
>>>For example, message IDs
>>>
>>>Message-ID: <1401663850.81707.YahooMailNeo@web121802.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
>>>and
>>>Message-ID: <1401664711.9264.YahooMailNeo@web121806.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
>>>
>>>in this thread have HTML alternatives, whereas the first message in
>>>the thread does not have an HTML alternative
>>>
>>>Perhaps a bug in ezmlm?
>>>
>>>The -x option does not affect all messages, as some people post in plain text.
>>>So it's not always obvious.
>>>
>>>It would also be useful to see the effect of not having the -f and -t options.
>>>Do any lists use -f (subject prefixing)?
>>>What about -t (trailers)?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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