www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Y! DMARC solution preferences
Date Sun, 01 Jun 2014 23:17:34 GMT
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
View raw message