From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from 104.59.85.219 ([104.59.85.219]) by ewsd; Mon Sep 21 13:41:06 EDT 2020
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 13:40:56 -0400
In-Reply-To: <8470F460DE71A2A9B26BF9B46F894E4F@eigenstate.org>
References: <8470F460DE71A2A9B26BF9B46F894E4F@eigenstate.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [9front] test
To: 9front@9front.org
From: Stanley Lieber <sl@stanleylieber.com>
Message-ID: <5F0A6AD0-ECFA-4383-B0F6-4C3EB0508B1B@stanleylieber.com>
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: responsive advanced hypervisor realtime solution 

On September 21, 2020 1:36:11 PM EDT, ori@eigenstate=2Eorg wrote:
>> this example has cleared up for me why gmail does such stupidity,
>> sadly they were misleading and claimed the spam classification was
>due
>> to "similar to other spam"=2E
>>=20
>> i can confirm that most of the incorrectly classified spam messages i
>> get in gmail seem to have dmarc not set to none=2E
>> i checked a few exemplary senders, one of which being a web forum
>with
>> quite a few messages every day=2E
>>=20
>> gmail itself also has it's dmarc set to none=2E
>>=20
>> so while gmail wants to force you to use dmarc (unverified, somebody
>> claimed that on irc once) they don't seem to think anybody should
>have
>> to act upon it in any way ;)
>
>I'll pile on and summarize the discussion from cat-v
>earlier today:
>
>Kvik's email was being shitcanned on gmail because
>of his dkim conflicting with our munging=2E Dkim signs
>headers that it expects anyone forwarding mail to
>leave untouched=2E Kvik's list was excessive, but most
>dkim configs will be unhappy with our rewrites, since
>they want the subject left untouched=2E
>
>That leaves us 3 options:
>
>	1=2E Strip out DKIM entirely from forwarded emails=2E
>	2=2E Don't mess with any headers we don't need to
>	3=2E Implement DKIM, munge to our heart's content,
>	   and re-sign=2E
>
>My vote is in favor of 2 right now, and maybe 3 if we
>ever implement dkim in upas=2E
>
>This seems like a good summary of the situation=2E
>
>	https://begriffs=2Ecom/posts/2018-09-18-dmarc-mailing-list=2Ehtml
>
>For reference, the headers gmail doesn't want us to touch are:
>
>	mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
>
>Not sure what the other big providers want=2E

how does every other mailing list in the world manage modifying the subjec=
t line?

sl