Re: [Tools-discuss] [rt5.ietf.org #6435] Unable to get mail back from alias expansion - expand-mediaman-chairs

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Thu, 19 May 2022 12:24 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 96E97C159486 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 May 2022 05:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 wzaV9H9ND3BX for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 May 2022 05:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [IPv6:2a01:7e00:e000:2bb::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 923DAC15E6E2 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 May 2022 05:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (dynamic-089-015-237-203.89.15.237.pool.telefonica.de [89.15.237.203]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA60A1F4A4; Thu, 19 May 2022 12:24:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id AC32C1A01EE; Thu, 19 May 2022 08:06:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, tools-discuss@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <3297556F-6FC2-4A43-9B59-3E2544BAABA6@tzi.org>
References: <rt-5.0.1-61158-1652918204-1888.6435-5-0@rt5.ietf.org> <a5e072c6-b370-0134-af78-1fb2f2762b01@alvestrand.no> <3297556F-6FC2-4A43-9B59-3E2544BAABA6@tzi.org>
Comments: In-reply-to Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> message dated "Thu, 19 May 2022 10:05:16 +0200."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7.1; GNU Emacs 26.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 08:06:35 -0400
Message-ID: <713753.1652961995@dooku>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/Zl2brMLs2GYblw3rbidn3DOQsyQ>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] [rt5.ietf.org #6435] Unable to get mail back from alias expansion - expand-mediaman-chairs
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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: Thu, 19 May 2022 12:24:17 -0000

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
    >> Who's in charge of the interaction between mailer and -chairs aliases?

    > Well, this is a longstanding issue with the alias processor; this is
    > based on a model that used to work when mail could simply be forwarded
    > without extensive changes to the headers in the forwarder, which is no
    > longer the case.

Unfortunately,  I think that the IETF will have to go into operating an IMAP
server for participants to be able to interact with each other.  I can
already regularly not unicast email directly to many other sites, and the
situation is getting worse due to lack of human supervision at those sites.

    > Yes, we are talking about a problem actively preventing work (*) and
    > not receiving any progress for a couple of years now.  I’m not
    > complaining, as there indeed were more severe problems to be solved
    > than mail arriving, but I will continue to try to push this up on the
    > priority list.

...

    > (*) Got another mail from a draft author that didn’t find out I was
    > talking to them until another draft author did a wide reply.  Today.

Daily occurance for me.

I think that the IETF should have rejected all email from sites with a p=reject
policy.  That would have made many of the problems apparent to the senders.
I'm still waiting for ARC to solve the problems, but I don't think it will
help.