1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <adam@signal11.com>) id 1Z6Nju-00044f-Iw
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 20 Jun 2015 18:43:38 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail-qg0-f41.google.com ([209.85.192.41])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z6Njs-0005BY-UC
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 20 Jun 2015 18:43:38 +0000
Received: by qgev13 with SMTP id v13so10008888qge.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 20 Jun 2015 11:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=lrYUXKxUMzBE62ljHf7kfypjw4zhRMXlCuivf9cyqjg=;
b=Lwy1eTNwoyGEmtMnQhTsjscbvoJcG2Z03a0Nve4f4G7/gPXPkgN5g69PQ1altMYG1N
tp9VLiHqix46tVBRkw+FTDMDYFZAd90zUGrrIehRWzSsqTxVAwquDNDMpmXJyt0gnd41
yP8OjCVloZKo+F0iiDX34kETXz+8RZXRf7jmRIPdzfbZEHIPkyRMj18mUnxPn7RiZBeO
hSVaMY+gCsp/Tk563GuYWEM2HCmLJFlF0CIvWkrBM1MQft9C6na4IrH/0tfzjWGLtCw5
iflCthO8RapRYOEJddqrhepR8sf+iB6i+fuw988MgR9RpUEMchvnZkRvqfrDGChFKKKF
P03A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkjsPkZdU6rvLOi892k2VpUsVYXQMZ6rV7MuSO3TewfZV+KX/UdVvW8jVjtfSgS2i7sqDAO
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.233.140 with SMTP id e134mr30466212qhc.63.1434825811453;
Sat, 20 Jun 2015 11:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.96.154.66 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 11:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0OSNh3pJV6q7zkaiG=0Vg8qacvo1x8tdpXXnk5Je=9fyQ@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>
<CAEz79PriNzD18Es60=2Nkz5U6G=Ocrm9ezJmK0P1DirdP-vPkw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFVoEQQF2TLTMpm0DvdXJV-mG3OA6ZU0=vbX1jZdKQ53=xwuOg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0OSNh3pJV6q7zkaiG=0Vg8qacvo1x8tdpXXnk5Je=9fyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 14:43:31 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFVoEQRtSSUYROxTHCBXam08D5rTUW-mrtrr7L4jx4rMQSOLGw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Weiss <adam@signal11.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135d2aece7d850518f76a73
X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
X-Headers-End: 1Z6Njs-0005BY-UC
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Mailman incompatibility with DKIM ...
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 18:43:38 -0000
--001a1135d2aece7d850518f76a73
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
It changes the mechanics at least. A quick glance at RFC(2)822 makes it
clear that this is a pretty weakly specified behavior and is somewhat of an
edge case. However, rewriting the envelopes has become somewhat prevalent
since strict DMARC has been adopted and I suspect that most recent MUAs
will handle it well. I know that at least with gmail it works as I would
expect. (Makes sense considering that this is how Google Groups handles
the problem.)
In any event, I really think it's worth a shot since having the subject and
footer tags is valuable. If it turns out to be problematic, it's not the
end of the world and things could be easily switched to go the lkml route...
--adam
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Adam Weiss <adam@signal11.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Warren,
>>
>> If you set dmarc_moderation_action to "Munge from", the list will detect
>> when someone posts from a domain that publishes a request for strict
>> signature checking for all mails originating from it (in DNS) and rewrite
>> the envelope-from to the list's address. Reply-to will be added and set to
>> the original sender.
>>
>
> That seems to change Reply behavior for those recipients? It would seem
> to accidentally direct mail intended to DKIM-user + list to DKIM-user.
>
> --
> Jeff Garzik
> Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
> BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
>
--001a1135d2aece7d850518f76a73
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">It changes the mechanics at least.=C2=A0 A quick glance at=
RFC(2)822 makes it clear that this is a pretty weakly specified behavior a=
nd is somewhat of an edge case.=C2=A0 However, rewriting the envelopes has =
become somewhat prevalent since strict DMARC has been adopted and I suspect=
that most recent MUAs will handle it well.=C2=A0 I know that at least with=
gmail it works as I would expect. =C2=A0(Makes sense considering that this=
is how Google Groups handles the problem.)<div><br></div><div>In any event=
, I really think it's worth a shot since having the subject and footer =
tags is valuable. If it turns out to be problematic, it's not the end o=
f the world and things could be easily switched to go the lkml route...</di=
v><div><br></div><div>--adam</div><div><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_=
extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Jeff=
Garzik <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:jgarzik@bitpay.com" target=
=3D"_blank">jgarzik@bitpay.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><span class=3D"">On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 12:=
47 PM, Adam Weiss <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:adam@signal11.com=
" target=3D"_blank">adam@signal11.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></span><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra"><span class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><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">Hi Warren,<div><br></div><div>If you=
set dmarc_moderation_action to "Munge from", the list will detec=
t when someone posts from a domain that publishes a request for strict sign=
ature checking for all mails originating from it (in DNS) and rewrite the e=
nvelope-from to the list's address.=C2=A0 Reply-to will be added and se=
t to the original sender.</div><div></div></div></blockquote></div><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div></span>That seems to change Reply behavior for=
those recipients?=C2=A0 It would seem to accidentally direct mail intended=
to DKIM-user + list to DKIM-user.<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#88=
8888"><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div>Jeff Garzik<br>Bitcoin c=
ore developer and open source evangelist<br>BitPay, Inc. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=
=A0<a href=3D"https://bitpay.com/" target=3D"_blank">https://bitpay.com/</a=
></div>
</font></span></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a1135d2aece7d850518f76a73--
|
