From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 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 ) 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 ; 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: References: Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 14:43:31 -0400 Message-ID: From: Adam Weiss To: Jeff Garzik 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 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Adam Weiss 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
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.)

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...

--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 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.

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.

--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin c= ore developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0https://bitpay.com/

--001a1135d2aece7d850518f76a73--