From: hiro <23hiro@gmail.com>
To: 9front@9front.org
Subject: Re: [9front] test
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 19:58:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFSF3XP7s2+8vvZuQhe_TOsk1UkmrUAcdA0vRsb7_aqLoR0u5w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5F0A6AD0-ECFA-4383-B0F6-4C3EB0508B1B@stanleylieber.com>
option 1 and 3 would cover that
On 9/21/20, Stanley Lieber <sl@stanleylieber.com> wrote:
> On September 21, 2020 1:36:11 PM EDT, ori@eigenstate.org 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".
>>>
>>> i can confirm that most of the incorrectly classified spam messages i
>>> get in gmail seem to have dmarc not set to none.
>>> i checked a few exemplary senders, one of which being a web forum
>>with
>>> quite a few messages every day.
>>>
>>> gmail itself also has it's dmarc set to none.
>>>
>>> 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. Dkim signs
>>headers that it expects anyone forwarding mail to
>>leave untouched. Kvik's list was excessive, but most
>>dkim configs will be unhappy with our rewrites, since
>>they want the subject left untouched.
>>
>>That leaves us 3 options:
>>
>> 1. Strip out DKIM entirely from forwarded emails.
>> 2. Don't mess with any headers we don't need to
>> 3. Implement DKIM, munge to our heart's content,
>> and re-sign.
>>
>>My vote is in favor of 2 right now, and maybe 3 if we
>>ever implement dkim in upas.
>>
>>This seems like a good summary of the situation.
>>
>> https://begriffs.com/posts/2018-09-18-dmarc-mailing-list.html
>>
>>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.
>
> how does every other mailing list in the world manage modifying the subject
> line?
>
> sl
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-21 17:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-21 15:40 test kvik
2020-09-21 17:12 ` [9front] test Stanley Lieber
2020-09-21 17:16 ` hiro
2020-09-21 17:36 ` ori
2020-09-21 17:40 ` Stanley Lieber
2020-09-21 17:51 ` ori
2020-09-21 17:59 ` ori
2020-09-21 18:27 ` Kurt H Maier
2020-09-21 17:58 ` hiro [this message]
2020-09-21 18:42 ` Stanley Lieber
2020-09-21 21:40 ` hiro
2020-09-21 22:20 ` hiro
2020-09-22 12:57 ` Ethan Gardener
2020-09-22 13:12 ` hiro
2020-09-21 17:59 ` Lyndon Nerenberg
2020-09-21 17:54 ` *****SPAM***** " Stefan Hertenberger
2020-09-21 20:33 ` Kurt H Maier
2020-09-21 21:23 ` kvik
2020-09-21 21:36 ` Kurt H Maier
2020-09-21 21:42 ` kvik
2020-09-21 21:57 ` Kurt H Maier
2020-09-21 22:32 ` kvik
2020-09-22 1:04 ` Kurt H Maier
2020-09-21 22:16 ` hiro
2020-09-22 18:57 ` Stefan Hertenberger
2020-09-22 19:38 ` Kurt H Maier
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2021-09-06 1:02 sl
2021-08-25 8:41 cinap_lenrek
2021-08-25 9:11 ` Pavel Renev
2021-08-25 14:41 ` kvik
2021-08-25 14:46 ` ori
2021-08-25 14:56 ` Stanley Lieber
2021-08-21 22:29 cinap_lenrek
2021-08-21 23:49 ` Stuart Morrow
2019-05-18 11:08 test cinap_lenrek
2019-05-18 14:28 ` [9front] test Stanley Lieber
2019-05-20 13:47 ` Calvin Morrison
2018-10-11 6:35 test Ethan Gardener
2018-10-11 13:30 ` [9front] test Stanley Lieber
2017-03-18 21:04 sl
2017-01-29 23:26 TEST sl
2017-01-29 23:29 ` [9front] TEST cinap_lenrek
2017-01-29 23:34 ` Stanley Lieber
2016-05-03 23:48 test sl
2016-05-03 23:55 ` [9front] test cinap_lenrek
2016-01-10 7:09 test cinap_lenrek
2016-01-10 7:42 ` [9front] test mischief
2016-01-04 23:14 test cinap_lenrek
2016-01-04 23:18 ` [9front] test Nick Owens
2015-11-18 2:34 test sl
2015-11-18 5:01 ` [9front] test ian kremlin
2015-10-09 17:41 [9front] TEST sl
2015-10-09 18:01 ` hiro
2015-10-09 2:42 TEST sl
2015-10-09 2:44 ` [9front] TEST Nick Owens
2015-10-09 3:12 ` cinap_lenrek
2015-10-09 9:04 ` hiro
2015-08-08 9:41 test cinap_lenrek
2015-08-08 9:50 ` [9front] test BurnZeZ
2015-01-31 19:47 test sl
2015-01-31 19:48 ` [9front] test cinap_lenrek
2014-06-13 8:28 test cinap_lenrek
2014-06-13 10:30 ` [9front] test Aram Hăvărneanu
2013-11-11 1:35 test cinap_lenrek
2013-11-11 1:40 ` [9front] test BurnZeZ
2013-12-05 13:16 ` suharik
2013-12-05 13:21 ` sl
2013-12-05 16:31 ` Kurt H Maier
2013-09-08 2:42 test sl
2013-09-09 5:46 ` [9front] test sl
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAFSF3XP7s2+8vvZuQhe_TOsk1UkmrUAcdA0vRsb7_aqLoR0u5w@mail.gmail.com \
--to=23hiro@gmail.com \
--cc=9front@9front.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).