IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tools-discuss] Can't send mail to Cenk (Fwd: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender)

Cenk Gündoğan <mail+ietf@gundogan.net> Fri, 11 December 2020 21:13 UTC

Return-Path: <mail+ietf@gundogan.net>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 012273A0EF3 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:13:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (bad RSA signature)" header.d=gundogan.net
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 Vz0kMgBmh8Up for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:13:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.localdomain (trantor.gundogan.net [37.120.167.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D5033A0EF2 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:13:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [46.22.0.158]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A27C53A17B for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 21:54:41 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gundogan.net; s=201712; t=1607720081; bh=6lDd88z/NVdKblF+gUSSBR60m3U1KlZLOPylD/jz3H4=; h=References:From:To:Subject:In-reply-to:Date:From; b=dEPmepCnhvm3IKvIYCKY98Tp1a5rcsQlXvZu/ONtv1v6y5kteClxlm5LudOgjW3+p c+QOp0+kPSZ/LJ7XaPhZsmptwpx1C4rvBqrLhu9DNG8Be5tzN/H+dBt3gl+aCUiVNx OF9Im1Ka8VfPKN0+fwBm5lfjKUnxKg3AxUkGguifsD/VQHntEBVO5Y+nta0fCZXzyi zmeyMb4oiQnpzEaCZJM5tSHSjF6pDxWvpGuxVEBycPoyFbBE08i6v1xcPUJZXvlDR8 l6ekDB9tlQ8mFaTFJV0dq7/uzsqvNl99DxDU4mMY6S/Sqr4EdhnwMKuwdUQwpJWlhP RjYWSD5bJJegg==
References: <20201211183328.C2BDF2979A3F@ary.qy> <461.1607713827@localhost> <50c0527d-4676-d485-382e-c967035798ea@levkowetz.com> <a8f64c28-3ef2-71da-ee4d-3ef87adb17c@taugh.com> <92A33A0F-7571-46AB-9CD4-BC193E545881@akamai.com> <DF60BD2F-8538-48BE-916A-8CE9A240FE7A@bangj.com> <ff8687db-c2f9-a4a2-d2dc-5c53a664b73f@taugh.com> <8D1B23C8-549F-45EC-99C6-FA6A55179F71@bangj.com>
User-agent: mu4e 1.4.13; emacs 27.1
From: Cenk Gündoğan <mail+ietf@gundogan.net>
To: tools-discuss@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <8D1B23C8-549F-45EC-99C6-FA6A55179F71@bangj.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 22:13:40 +0100
Message-ID: <87mtykf3ln.fsf@gundogan.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/HQOQ5AgBJrWGE90gdtmMTMhtOio>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Can't send mail to Cenk (Fwd: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender)
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 21:13:45 -0000

Hello,

only a small percentage is actually leveraging the reply-to-list
feature.  Maybe it's something that one MUA can do better than another
MUA, but in my experience mails via ietf lists are sufficiently tagged
(List-ID, List-Post, ...) to use this feature.

When replying, I just hit to-list-only and do not deal with
DMARC-related From: rewriting at all.  While this configured mailman is
doing a decent job at deduplicating mails, other software might not be
that apt.  I like to think of this as a (maybe nowadays outdated?)
netiquette.

>> For small personal domains, DMARC policies other than p=none cause lots of problems and solve none.  If your name were Paypal, the advice would be different.

I'll think about this.  If this is what it takes to improve the user
experience of my correspondences, I might adopt that (: I'd prefer this
over allowlisting the earlier mentioned IPs.

Cheers,
Cenk

On Fri, Dec 11 2020 at 21:34 +0100, Tom Pusateri wrote:

>> On Dec 11, 2020, at 3:24 PM, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> From someone who runs my own mail server, it bugs me that my address gets rewritten.
>> 
>> That's because you publish a DMARC policy with p=quarantine.  Change it to p=none and the rewriting will stop.
>> 
>> For small personal domains, DMARC policies other than p=none cause lots of problems and solve none.  If your name were Paypal, the advice would be different.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> John Levine
>
> Thanks!
>
> Add that to an IETF FAQ somewhere please.
>
> Tom
> ___________________________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list
> Tools-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
>
> Please report datatracker.ietf.org and mailarchive.ietf.org
> bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb
> or send email to datatracker-project@ietf.org
>
> Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at
> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues
> or send email to webmaster@tools.ietf.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email