Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC related mass bounces / disabled subscriptions (fwd) Jo-Philipp Wich: [LEDE-DEV] DMARC related mass bounces / disabled subscriptions

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sat, 17 December 2016 17:08 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 644751293F9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 09:08:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.89
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=HhRCC99i; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=o5QQ1Bqv
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8aXlCeOKZ3PQ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 09:08:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 556B11293E0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 09:08:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uBHH7tQb029495 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 17 Dec 2016 09:08:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1481994482; x=1482080882; bh=lXdwas9FmDvK4QfFI56hyDSGkYbGnsaYg0qB0ctXoUc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=HhRCC99iGZR01bimWVTuxPz8AfzomL4G2WGEFCNOLO2JXc5hBhnyB7CAGlFo5/dlT cg/0SCbyYryV6T8vhQk6FeQbYTA+1kyzw/HVkfsn9BlK5iql78xTBGgPeeYEQNcsZ4 LY8QlKjfIrlCV08zPO8jCfKSE8gGqGaABxDUivpQ=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1481994482; x=1482080882; i=@elandsys.com; bh=lXdwas9FmDvK4QfFI56hyDSGkYbGnsaYg0qB0ctXoUc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=o5QQ1Bqvbf/8CmUGhxXYR9/K3CFgz56ucdu6cMRGt25zLqv+RqY/9s/ktt2eqsAQ2 vAbjEljHdqiKKqHzlV6X1IAamPRIksmwJFgiNONyO+wLNkbuDSNlBiPSTlFNfOyTQZ Sfwd+9TbJGrRIlgnnqLDT6aEopdw5IrTBJPUdwVQ=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20161217081922.0b4350e0@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 08:39:24 -0800
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC related mass bounces / disabled subscriptions (fwd) Jo-Philipp Wich: [LEDE-DEV] DMARC related mass bounces / disabled subscriptions
In-Reply-To: <60C5B0E2-95E6-4AE5-87FA-5C438F146181@fugue.com>
References: <25431.1481725548@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20161217022643.0e830e78@elandnews.com> <60C5B0E2-95E6-4AE5-87FA-5C438F146181@fugue.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/G_Rnpy95e0asv7ww4KnTY3Ls-v4>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 17:08:07 -0000

Hi Ted,
At 07:56 17-12-2016, Ted Lemon wrote:
>Yes.   And changing it to the mailing list also has problems in 
>terms of readability.   How about:
>
>For First Last via Listname <listaddress@example.com>
>
>This is brief, avoids the autocomplete fail, and gets the job done.

The above adds a string to prevent the auto-complete feature from 
adding an email address which is not the author's email address.  At 
this stage it is worthwhile to consider the idea.

The bounce problem [1] is a case of the IETF violating an IETF "standard".

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg100100.html