Hi folks, I tried emailing the committee, but that just got moderated and I've not heard anything since, so I was wondering are was any progress on fix the LUV mailing list to not rewrite the From: header? thanks, Chris -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC
Chris Samuel via luv-main <luv-main@luv.asn.au> writes:
I tried emailing the committee, but that just got moderated and I've not heard anything since, so I was wondering are was any progress on fix the LUV mailing list to not rewrite the From: header?
First you need to convince the list administor to change it back. There was a long discussion on luv-talk (something like this should have been discussed on luv-main IMHO) you may have missed, see the first messsage: http://lists.luv.asn.au/pipermail/luv-talk/2015-November/003584.html Basically rewriting the address is required so us not to break DKIM and DMARC. (not just rewriting From: header, also rewriting Reply-To: which has upset some people here too) -- Brian May <brian@linuxpenguins.xyz> https://linuxpenguins.xyz/brian/
On Sat, 5 Dec 2015 12:57:23 PM Brian May via luv-main wrote:
First you need to convince the list administor to change it back.
This is the *only* email list I'm that has this crazy setup. I can't believe it's required. Even the Beowulf list that I run, with over 1,500 members, doesn't need it.
There was a long discussion on luv-talk
Wrong place to discuss it, IMHO. -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC
On Sat, 5 Dec 2015 01:26:18 PM Chris Samuel via luv-main wrote:
This is the *only* email list I'm that has this crazy setup.
Actually I need to retract that bit, I've remembered that both comet reporting lists I'm on are hosted at Yahoo and they do this to. Frustrating there as well. Ironically they're the only lists that I occasional receive spam via too (due to forget email from subscribers). -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC
On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 12:57:23PM +1100, Brian May via luv-main wrote:
First you need to convince the list administor to change it back. There was a long discussion on luv-talk (something like this should have been discussed on luv-main IMHO) you may have missed, see the first messsage:
http://lists.luv.asn.au/pipermail/luv-talk/2015-November/003584.html
In that thread, I have attempted to convince the list administrator to use dmarc_moderation_action *instead of* from_is_list, as recommended by the Mailman documentation; effectively only rewriting the "From:" field where necessary, and I believe that's an acceptable compromise to many more people than the current solution.
Basically rewriting the address is required so us not to break DKIM and DMARC.
Only where the message has been sent from a domain with a restrictive DMARC policy like dmarc_moderation_action does; not every single message, as from_is_list does.
On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 04:34:40PM +1100, Joel W. Shea via luv-main wrote:
http://lists.luv.asn.au/pipermail/luv-talk/2015-November/003584.html
In that thread, I have attempted to convince the list administrator to use dmarc_moderation_action *instead of* from_is_list, as recommended by the Mailman documentation; effectively only rewriting the "From:" field where necessary, and I believe that's an acceptable compromise to many more people than the current solution.
that's a not-unreasonable compromise. it only mangles messages where the alternative would be to have it bounce or be discarded....and, most importantly, doesn't munge other messages where DMARC is not an issue.
Only where the message has been sent from a domain with a restrictive DMARC policy like dmarc_moderation_action does; not every single message, as from_is_list does.
i'm in favour of it, as a compromise. i'd prefer not to mangle mail just to pander to giant corporations broken non-standards, but at least dmarc_moderation_action seems to do minimal damage. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
On 05.12.15 12:57, Brian May via luv-main wrote:
Chris Samuel via luv-main <luv-main@luv.asn.au> writes:
I tried emailing the committee, but that just got moderated and I've not heard anything since, so I was wondering are was any progress on fix the LUV mailing list to not rewrite the From: header?
First you need to convince the list administor to change it back. There was a long discussion on luv-talk (something like this should have been discussed on luv-main IMHO) you may have missed, see the first messsage:
Is there any progress on this problem? It is bloody annoying that it has screwed up thread identification in mutt. To wit; the pattern ~(~P) works on every list but this one, now. And I concur, holding secret discussions on another list is not an acceptable substitute to addressing this list's problems here. Erik
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 04:18:37PM +1100, Erik Christiansen via luv-main wrote:
And I concur, holding secret discussions on another list is not an acceptable substitute to addressing this list's problems here.
they weren't secret discussions. luv-talk is a public list, and the changes were made to that list first, and then on luv-main. it wasn't exactly a discussion, either. an announcement was made and a few people (including myself) objected. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 05:05:39 PM Craig Sanders via luv-main wrote:
it wasn't exactly a discussion, either. an announcement was made and a few people (including myself) objected.
It was? When was that? -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC
On 2015-12-19 14:48, Chris Samuel via luv-main wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 05:05:39 PM Craig Sanders via luv-main wrote:
it wasn't exactly a discussion, either. an announcement was made and a few people (including myself) objected.
It was? When was that?
As mentioned it was on luv-talk. As I recall there was no announcement; the change was implemented without warning and /then/ there was some discussion. Anders
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 04:04:45PM +0100, Anders Holmström via luv-main wrote:
As mentioned it was on luv-talk. As I recall there was no announcement; the change was implemented without warning and /then/ there was some discussion.
By "announcement", i mean Russell said "I'm doing this" and gave his reasons. given that he's the list admin, that counts as an announcement to me, regardless of the fact that i disagree with both his decision and his reasons. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Craig Sanders via luv-main <luv-main@luv.asn.au> writes:
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 04:04:45PM +0100, Anders Holmström via luv-main wrote:
As mentioned it was on luv-talk. As I recall there was no announcement; the change was implemented without warning and /then/ there was some discussion.
By "announcement", i mean Russell said "I'm doing this" and gave his reasons.
given that he's the list admin, that counts as an announcement to me, regardless of the fact that i disagree with both his decision and his reasons.
... except people only subscribed to luv-main and not luv-talk won't have seen his accouncement. -- Brian May <brian@linuxpenguins.xyz> https://linuxpenguins.xyz/brian/
On 20.12.15 11:39, Brian May via luv-main wrote:
Craig Sanders via luv-main <luv-main@luv.asn.au> writes:
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 04:04:45PM +0100, Anders Holmström via luv-main wrote:
As mentioned it was on luv-talk. As I recall there was no announcement; the change was implemented without warning and /then/ there was some discussion.
By "announcement", i mean Russell said "I'm doing this" and gave his reasons.
given that he's the list admin, that counts as an announcement to me, regardless of the fact that i disagree with both his decision and his reasons.
... except people only subscribed to luv-main and not luv-talk won't have seen his accouncement.
Prezactly. (Thus secreted/hidden, by any reasonable measure.) A small procmail rule will undo the munge on receipt, though, so I guess it is actually no biggie if the munge isn't rectified at source. (It does seem broken, though, for the mailserver to have to set both sender and envelope-sender, for any reason. If a hack is needed, do it in the latter, for heaven's sake. Or add yet another header - they're cheap.) Erik
On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 04:04:45 PM Anders Holmström via luv-main wrote:
As mentioned it was on luv-talk.
That's fine for changes to luv-talk, but IMHO changes to luv-main should have been discussed on luv-main, where the actual subscribers are. Thanks for the clarification, I went back and realised I'd misread Craig's email, I though he'd said it was discussed here but he was referring to the changes happening to luv-talk first and then luv-main. -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC
On 2015-12-21 09:35, Chris Samuel via luv-main wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 04:04:45 PM Anders Holmström via luv-main wrote:
As mentioned it was on luv-talk.
That's fine for changes to luv-talk, but IMHO changes to luv-main should have been discussed on luv-main, where the actual subscribers are.
Thanks for the clarification, I went back and realised I'd misread Craig's email, I though he'd said it was discussed here but he was referring to the changes happening to luv-talk first and then luv-main.
Agreed. To clarify further, it was not a case of "we want to change, let's discuss"; the change was implemented without prior discussion or announcement, just like on luv-main. Anders
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 07:41:35 PM Anders Holmström via luv-main wrote:
Agreed. To clarify further, it was not a case of "we want to change, let's discuss"; the change was implemented without prior discussion or announcement, just like on luv-main.
I raised the issue for discussion on the committee list, but no-one there seemed to think it was a big deal. I sent a message to luv-announce but that didn't get past the moderation system (sorry). -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
participants (7)
-
Anders Holmström -
Brian May -
Chris Samuel -
Craig Sanders -
Erik Christiansen -
Joel W. Shea -
Russell Coker