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 Mon, 02 Jun 2014 01:04:56 GMT
Doing some digging yielded the following additional domains with
a p=reject DMARC policy:

twitter.com
facebook.com
linkedin.com




On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:54 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
 

>
>
>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