IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tools-discuss] Step backwards: <noreply@ietf.org>

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 13 March 2019 05:27 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
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 436F6130E7F for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 22:27:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.679
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.679 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
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 iAK7boI_TkvJ for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 22:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71E12130E7D for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 22:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MacBook-Pro.roach.at (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x2D5ROsG007459 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 13 Mar 2019 00:27:25 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1552454845; bh=5tmbwqrQCQEPuo8iKAAJl7RqEz1pnLgvIIbdgRs1Hf8=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=VUd7/srOe5oCOXH46lIdEpMbaCBK5/seR+DjoaFJ0LLF2yzqN12EnAGLZJyNRmevP A+JTRyeTQbkVoTo++EQS5/F8nQ5YQxb0aAXNUZHIFAj36SDB4OOSA07kjOvg7vE6k9 lnZ9eJV35nqYLTGkiUfrVXdTBLzGlRhafCadmC9I=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be MacBook-Pro.roach.at
To: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>, Patrik Fältström <paf=40frobbit.se@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org
References: <186f4ff4-e31e-80c6-600f-9521694734f0@gmail.com> <656168f7-ed79-e19e-ea73-433cd9b49994@levkowetz.com> <AF03E2FC-A1F4-4585-B40F-9A263035D7BC@frobbit.se> <5eee9abc-4919-d3f3-9d5c-ec05823cf479@levkowetz.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <c70a7aa9-f40f-69c7-1b6a-d66d65bba0e0@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 00:27:18 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5eee9abc-4919-d3f3-9d5c-ec05823cf479@levkowetz.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/hOSrxC_3wSOtzN6itGg5TVm8pLw>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Step backwards: <noreply@ietf.org>
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: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 05:27:28 -0000

On 3/12/19 10:57 PM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>
> Since this was becoming increasingly troublesome, as more and more
> domains were adopting stricter SPF settings, we've stopped sending
> mail purporting to be sent by <reviewer@reviewers.domain>, and are
> now sending from <noreply@ietf.org>, but we missed adding a Reply-To:
> header field that would make replies work as before.


By the way, this dovetails well into a conversation we had earlier about 
responses to IESG ballots being attached to the ballots, so that the 
entire conversation ends up in the ballot. This would greatly simplify 
the task of IESG members attempting to validate whether review comments 
received responses (and what those responses were). Please consider 
changing <noreply@ietf.org> to instead be <unique-token@ietf.org>, and 
make mail sent to <unique-token@ietf.org> turn into a comment which is 
then appended to whatever data structure originated the initial email.

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email