Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.220.52 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.220.52; envelope-from=wtogami@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-pa0-f52.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP1T3r=VDRBTM_jrm_g0BkQy_NZA40BPcZtVDq_0au6TKw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEz79PoDn+-aDkqSfPeQFUjYDEDEhSrJ2mFYcbitHBf4oADBSg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP3vut8uYWeeynLdwvSM56eXZZdgidaEgcvg1FNMye6P9w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEz79Pr4ug8zyJ5bibCG3m0YD8gkBiXysWJsZDThTiwXsgd7YQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP1T3r=VDRBTM_jrm_g0BkQy_NZA40BPcZtVDq_0au6TKw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 00:38:30 -1000
Message-ID: <CAEz79PriNzD18Es60=2Nkz5U6G=Ocrm9ezJmK0P1DirdP-vPkw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Warren Togami Jr." <wtogami@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc1b426650b40518dc869a
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Mailman incompatibility with DKIM ...
Precedence: list

--047d7bdc1b426650b40518dc869a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:

> The new list currently has footers removed during testing.  I am not
>> pleased with the need to remove the subject tag and footer to be more
>> compatible with DKIM users.
>>
>
> Lists can do what are effectively MITM attacks on people's messages in any
> way they like, if they resign for the messages themselves. That seems fair
> to me!  :)
>

Mailman isn't resigning it.  Should it be?  Does other mailing list
software?


>
>
>>  I'm guessing DKIM enforcement is not very common because of issues like
>> this?
>>
>
> DKIM is used by most mail on the internet. DMARC rules that publish in DNS
> statements like "All mail from bitpay.com is signed correctly so trash
> any that isn't" are used on some of the worlds most heavily phished domains
> like google.com, PayPal, eBay, and indeed BitPay.
>
> These rules are understood and enforced by all major webmail providers
> including Gmail. It's actually only rusty geek infrastructure that has
> problems with this, I've never heard of DKIM/DMARC users having issues
> outside of dealing with mailman. The vast majority of email users who never
> post to technical mailing lists benefit from it significantly.
>
> Really everyone should use them. Adding cryptographic integrity to email
> is hardly a crazy idea :)
>

I understand the reason to protect the "heavily phished" domains.  I heard
that LKML does not modify the subject or add a footer, perhaps because it
would make it incompatible with DKIM of the several big corporate domains
who participate.

I suppose it is somewhat acceptable for us to remove subject tags and
footers if we have no choice...

Warren

--047d7bdc1b426650b40518dc869a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On F=
ri, Jun 19, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Mike Hearn <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"m=
ailto:mike@plan99.net" target=3D"_blank">mike@plan99.net</a>&gt;</span> wro=
te:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-=
left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_=
extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><span class=3D""><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-lef=
t:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quot=
e"><div>The new list currently has footers removed during testing.=C2=A0 I =
am not pleased with the need to remove the subject tag and footer to be mor=
e compatible with DKIM users.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>=
</div></span><div>Lists can do what are effectively MITM attacks on people&=
#39;s messages in any way they like, if they resign for the messages themse=
lves. That seems fair to me! =C2=A0:)</div></div></div></div></blockquote><=
div><br></div><div>Mailman isn&#39;t resigning it.=C2=A0 Should it be?=C2=
=A0 Does other mailing list software?=C2=A0</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc so=
lid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote"><span class=3D""><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gm=
ail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-le=
ft:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te"><span><div>=C2=A0I&#39;m guessing DKIM enforcement is not very common b=
ecause of issues like this?</div></span></div></div></div></blockquote><div=
><br></div></span><div>DKIM is used by most mail on the internet. DMARC rul=
es that publish in DNS statements like &quot;All mail from <a href=3D"http:=
//bitpay.com" target=3D"_blank">bitpay.com</a> is signed correctly so trash=
 any that isn&#39;t&quot; are used on some of the worlds most heavily phish=
ed domains like <a href=3D"http://google.com" target=3D"_blank">google.com<=
/a>, PayPal, eBay, and indeed BitPay.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>These =
rules are understood and enforced by all major webmail providers including =
Gmail. It&#39;s actually only rusty geek infrastructure that has problems w=
ith this, I&#39;ve never heard of DKIM/DMARC users having issues outside of=
 dealing with mailman. The vast majority of email users who never post to t=
echnical mailing lists benefit from it significantly.</div><div><br></div><=
div>Really everyone should use them. Adding cryptographic integrity to emai=
l is hardly a crazy idea :)</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></=
div><div>I understand the reason to protect the &quot;heavily phished&quot;=
 domains.=C2=A0 I heard that LKML does not modify the subject or add a foot=
er, perhaps because it would make it incompatible with DKIM of the several =
big corporate domains who participate.</div><div><br></div><div>I suppose i=
t is somewhat acceptable for us to remove subject tags and footers if we ha=
ve no choice...</div><div><br></div></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">=
Warren</div></div>

--047d7bdc1b426650b40518dc869a--