Re: [dispatch] De-munging mailing list messages

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> Mon, 22 August 2022 03:31 UTC

Return-Path: <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF427C14CE3E for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Aug 2022 20:31:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=tnetconsulting.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v33kkOOrVFXk for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Aug 2022 20:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net (tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net [IPv6:2600:3c00:e000:1e9::8849]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5839C1524B2 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Aug 2022 20:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Contact-TNet-Consulting-Abuse-for-assistance by tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-3) with ESMTPSA id 27M3VLuM023079 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Aug 2022 22:31:21 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=tnetconsulting.net; s=2019; t=1661139081; bh=ar4yRK2LedgZ6LSpiEyt8oZmuI546YWM31iX9cfFDvE=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Message-ID:Date:User-Agent: MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Cc:Content-Disposition: Content-Language:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Date:From: In-Reply-To:Message-ID:MIME-Version:References:Reply-To: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Sender:Subject:To: User-Agent; b=bTluVsCIi7HVLv7EUgWpKmS4vxTlotrMfuj/p250+dEiN9NkC0QblwgOzV/ymv/xc NjlAhFZAvLgrNGvdp0j3OksOi7GF7KVIX+JqNb+RXABTTlCmKkfmQxxg1HBV44EzYp EmHcaRDDqNzd94rS4WJp+VTFLHxxJnpCD1/Zpg1A=
To: dispatch@ietf.org
References: <20220822031411.41C234835A1E@ary.qy>
From: Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>
Organization: TNet Consulting
Message-ID: <7d5023be-b0b2-367b-bb25-f7f6d790dacf@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2022 21:31:00 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20220822031411.41C234835A1E@ary.qy>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms040007030706070607060307"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/MWpnsD_VNG_RhA9WEgurQwBO6fI>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] De-munging mailing list messages
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2022 03:31:26 -0000

On 8/21/22 9:14 PM, John Levine wrote:
> Eventually. Large mail providers including Google and Microsoft are 
> working on it, and you can see ARC headers on a lot of their mail, 
> but for reasons I don't entirely understand it is taking a long time 
> for them to use the ARC results in their mail filtering,

As a small / individual operator, I'm of the opinion that ARC is 
intractable.  I had my server configured to support ARC for a while, but 
eventually gave up after the implementation annoyed me.

My reason for believing this and subsequently giving up on ARC is that 
I've yet to find a way to get recipients to trust my server's ARC seal. 
After some investigation and discussion, I got the impression that 
having recipients trust your ARC seal was effectively a good old boys club.

I fully acknowledge that was not the intention.  But the lack of good 
distribution system and the need for the recipient to trust my ARC seal 
even after validation was ... intractable.

I would LOVE to learn that I am wrong and that things are better than my 
current working understanding.  So, please, by all means, correct me if 
I'm wrong.

> Nope. There is ARC code in Mailman 3, but we are still using Mailman 
> 2. I hear there is a migration plan, eventually.

I feel like Mailman 2 to Mailman 3 is about like upgrading from Windows 
95 to Windows NT or 32-bit Windows to 64-bit Windows.  Similar in 
function, similar in appearance, and similar behavior, but completely 
different and not completely compatible under the hood.

> In the meantime we're using a local hack I invented and Henrik 
> implemented that rewrites From: addresses in a way that makes it 
> obvious who they are, e.g.
> 
>    bob@bigcorp.com
> 
> turns into
> 
>    bob=40bigcorp.com@dmarc.ietf.org

It's not Sender Rewriting Scheme in form, but it sure seems like SRS in 
spirit.

> We set up temporary forwards so direct replies work.

That's nice.

> This is a kludge but for now it's the least bad kludge I'm aware of 
> and does not depend on recipients to do anything special.

Agreed.

It also embodies ideas that I've had for a while.  To whit, the mailing 
list is it's own proper first rate terminal entity that people 
communicate with as the destination or source, not merely an expansion 
system.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die