On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 04:54:22 PM Craig Sanders via luv-main wrote:
DKIM is an ill-conceived abomination. It actually cares about the *headers* in a message rather than the **envelope*. To an MTA, headers are irrelevant, they're just comments....what matters is the envelope sender address and the envelope recipient address.
And worse, DKIM cares about the From: header rather than the Sender: header.
It cares about what the user sees. The purpose of DKIM is not to ensure that only Paypal can have an envelope sender saying paypal.com, it's purpose is to ensure that only Paypal can have a From: field with paypal.com.
This is just broken in every possible way.
If only people who developed SMTP in the early days had thought of spam and phishing.
Yes. I'd appreciate it if people would stop acting like I'm doing something I want to do here. I just want mail to go through reliably and I'm doing what is necessary to achieve that goal.
unfortunately, you stil haven't impleemnted the minimum-damage option that only munges posts that are sent by users from domains that implement DKIM (like google or yahoo), and leaves other mail alone.
I don't like the idea of having different handling methods for different messages. We have already had one user complain about this even though we aren't doing it!
it's not like anyone ever posts from those domains to our lists anyway.
We have Wen, Joel, Tony, Tim, Trent and others posting from Gmail. We have Lev, me, and others DKIM signing their own mail.
which is one of the more annoying things about this issue - the configuration messes things up for active participants on the list, and it doesn't even provide any benefit to the lurkers who never say or contribute anything.
Apart from the ones who receive mail viw Gmail, the ones who complained about my mail going to their spam folders which started me working on this.
That's entirely the wrong thing to do. those who contribute may well stop bothering if they get annoyed enough, and non-contributors won't step forward to replace them...if they were inclined to, they'd already be posting.
driving away those who write the posts (that both they and the lurkers read) is self-defeating.
But list traffic is significantly greater than usual at the moment.
Widespread use of DMARC will result in changes to well established conventions.
IMO it's an attempt by major corporate players to completely take over email so that no email is ever sent that they don't get a copy of to examine and index and use to build up profiles on individuals.
What makes you think that? When I send DKIM signed mail to you it's between my mail server, yours, and my DNS server.
Message forgery is a solved problem. SPF works. DKIM is a) overkill and b) unnecesary.
SPF doesn't stop forged headers unless you use DMARC.
I don't personally object to having the list server rewrite the "From" field and add a "Reply-to" header that designates the original sender; but some people have needs which differ from mine, and for them it can be an inconvenience.
NO!
those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat the same damned stupid mistakes. This issue was settled definitively in the 90s.
Mailing lists should *never*, under any circumstances, mess with the Reply-To header. That belongs solely to the original sender.
Lists have several alternatives they can use, including Mail-Followup-To: and List-Post:
and Lists shouldn't mess with the From: header, either. No matter what corporate vermin demand. WGAF what facebook wants? how many emails from luv lists ever go to facebook?
The mail servers that people use to send mail to this list are also used by people who want to send mail to Facebook. Even if every single LUV member avoided ever using Facebook then we would still be affected by what they want. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/