Mailing-List: contact infrastructure-dev-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: infrastructure-dev@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of joe_schaefer@yahoo.com
 designates 98.138.91.97 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s2048; d=yahoo.com;
	b=aAJNxZJVPb/bOz9xc3xWypt07aBqmZO4WVv0AdDOq2xcXIjmTz3IiNlt5WPz5LUSqIW3MBkYwQFi77AAXi61On9aWtzfYDqr9ZkIOVa37tbk3V2j4tc80nRpkCuksGfPUk/CrCsFK8kR5ihlxP265shbr3C2pbfygFFzkEL6v+YviooUG3xumEDtMr8RMNGxZtLAUqqW8sDUSw9XxMwWawvHhnTXhM2u2wShwhBQ0Dzm3C3sWi4b372y4DXnPPLLDTXy5QLVDDuNMLyp8iexy16rhhQPg/yu7vyOPDRHEQlKpvpCvf/lO44htP1QcVrrB1aG9VMLZbMONJZ8gvRlDw==;
References: 
 <CAGr9p8C3T1hL1s-wFU5tR_3A8vQCYCaXiKrsUuuhgK2o3UiN3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <60429CFC-932B-42BF-A46E-60F8D3EFAEB4@pc-tony.com>
 <CAGr9p8DMq2HWL3O82hF07dxi2VWJ4w5i6u-Gq1bQwnLKkYwOrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKprHVby+E9svPsv4-EU=uYT6AgZAFuWU3prw_tNenaqxx_bAg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKprHVby+E9svPsv4-EU=uYT6AgZAFuWU3prw_tNenaqxx_bAg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <65C50E37-23EC-4AF3-BC92-4645CE128476@yahoo.com>
Cc: "joel.pearson@ipaustralia.gov.au" <joel.pearson@ipaustralia.gov.au>
From: Joseph Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com.INVALID>
Subject: Re: Nabble Archive emails to MLs rejected due to SPF check
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:53:51 -0400
To: "infrastructure-dev@apache.org" <infrastructure-dev@apache.org>

The problem with Nabble is not purely Nabble's fault - as I have said severa=
l times now Nabble uses the user's inbound address instead of a Nabble addre=
ss because we insisted on it.

Now what Nabble needs to do for us is to rewrite those addresses using SRS, w=
hich ezmlm supports.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 12, 2014, at 1:03 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
>=20
>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Robert Metzger <rmetzger@apache.org> wr=
ote:
>> Thank you for the fast response.
>> I understand that this check is there to protect from phishing / spam
>> mails. Let me explain my reasoning ...
>=20
> So the problem isn't with whitelisting Nabble; the problem is that
> we'd have to disable SPF checks. The owners of those domains have
> configured SPF to not allow third parties to send messages that appear
> to be originating from those domains.
>=20
> I appreciate that users want to communicate with projects, and think
> thats a great thing; something I highly encourage. However, I think
> that the onus is on Nabble to figure out how to not have issues with
> domains that enforce SPF for their mail, not for scores of places to
> make exceptions for them.
>=20
> --David