On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 09:01:11 PM Craig Sanders via luv-main wrote:
OK, please go tell Yahoo etc that they are doing it wrong. Let's leave the list server in it's current configuration until you convince Yahoo and Gmail of the error of their ways.
if you intend to do nothing, then just say so - don't make up some bullshit impossible goal that "might" get you to unbreak the list.
I have been very clear from the start that I intend to have the lists work reliably for delivering mail from all users (including Yahoo) and too all users (including Yahoo and Gmail). I have no plans to change that. I am entirely serious that if DMARC was to go away I would remove the DMARC specific setting.
Actually the Gmail users didn't do anything, they just signed up for a mail service knowing nothing about DKIM or the Gmail actions that would happen when they received DKIM signed mail via a list.
it's really difficult to have much sympathy for the technical problems experienced by people who chose to use a spyware service run by a giant corporation. They CHOSE to have no control over their mail, they get to just suck it up and accept whatever problems that causes. They don't get to assume that their abdication of responsibility for their own email automatically entitle them to cause problems for others.
So this is really a debate about who's the most elite under the guise of discussing list headers?
the mailman devs have obviously got it wrong. even they admit that their implementation is buggy and broken.
What is buggy is the fact that they can't preserve headers and body encoding.
there's also the fact that mailman strips attachments and makes other changes to the message body which is going to invalidate any signing of the original msg.
Yes. But I'm not aware of other list software that does what we want and solves these problems.
Look, the major problem with DMARC is that it uses the From: header.
If it used the Sender: header instead (or used it IF it exists in the headers), then mailman could do the right thing by stripping attachments, changing the encoding, or whatever and declare that the list was the Sender: and DKIM sign it.
Well that wasn't what DMARC was designed to do.
It's OK to wish that Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail, Facebook, and other big companies would do things differently. But your wishes aren't going to change anything. Let's stick to discussing the reality of how to deal with mail to/from such services.
i didn't wish they did things differently, at least that's not the argument i'm making here. my attitude is that their unreasonable demands about changing the nature of email and mailing lists should be ignored, not surrendered/pandered to.
We have to either make the list work with mail to/from such services or exclude them from the lists. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/