From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 107.207.65.229 ([107.207.65.229]) by ewsd; Mon Sep 21 16:19:52 EDT 2020 Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 14:42:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <8470F460DE71A2A9B26BF9B46F894E4F@eigenstate.org> <5F0A6AD0-ECFA-4383-B0F6-4C3EB0508B1B@stanleylieber.com> 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 Message-ID: List-ID: <9front.9front.org> List-Help: X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: scale-out self-healing cloud controller On September 21, 2020 1:58:17 PM EDT, hiro <23hiro@gmail=2Ecom> wrote: >option 1 and 3 would cover that > >On 9/21/20, Stanley Lieber wrote: >> 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 >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> gmail itself also has it's dmarc set to none=2E >>>> >>>> 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 >subject >> line? >> >> sl >> my point is, the implication is that dkim is both universally expected and= desirable=2E is that really the case? it seems like just glossing over the= question is silly=2E we need to make a decision (and modify it later, if n= ecessary)=2E if we need dkim, we should implement it=2E if not, not=2E righ= t? sl