4 Dec
2015
4 Dec
'15
10:43 p.m.
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
5 Dec
5 Dec
1:57 a.m.
Chris Samuel via luv-main <luv-main(a)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(a)linuxpenguins.xyz>
https://linuxpenguins.xyz/brian/
2:26 a.m.
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
7:46 a.m.
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
5:34 a.m.
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.
5:50 a.m.
On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 04:34:40PM +1100, Joel W. Shea via luv-main wrote:
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(a)taz.net.au>
19 Dec
19 Dec
5:18 a.m.
On 05.12.15 12:57, Brian May via luv-main wrote:
Chris Samuel via luv-main <luv-main(a)luv.asn.au>
writes:
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
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:
6:05 a.m.
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(a)taz.net.au>
1:48 p.m.
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
3:04 p.m.
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:
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
it wasn't exactly a discussion, either. an
announcement was
made and a few people (including myself) objected.
It was? When was that?
11:54 p.m.
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(a)taz.net.au>
20 Dec
20 Dec
12:39 a.m.
Craig Sanders via luv-main <luv-main(a)luv.asn.au> writes:
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 04:04:45PM +0100, Anders
Holmström via luv-main wrote:
... except people only subscribed to luv-main and not luv-talk won't
have seen his accouncement.
--
Brian May <brian(a)linuxpenguins.xyz>
https://linuxpenguins.xyz/brian/
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.
2:26 a.m.
On 20.12.15 11:39, Brian May via luv-main wrote:
Craig Sanders via luv-main <luv-main(a)luv.asn.au>
writes:
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, Dec 19, 2015 at 04:04:45PM +0100, Anders
Holmström via luv-main wrote:
... except people only subscribed to luv-main and not luv-talk won't
have seen his accouncement. 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.
21 Dec
21 Dec
8:35 a.m.
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
8:41 a.m.
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:
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
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. 
11:25 a.m.
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/
2649
days inactive
2666
days old
15 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Anders Holmström -
Brian May -
Chris Samuel -
Craig Sanders -
Erik Christiansen -
Joel W. Shea -
Russell Coker