Mailing List Archive

On Thu, 1 Mar 2018 14:42:35 -0600
R0b0t1 <r030t1@gmail.com> wrote:

> I keep getting emails from the mailer daemon about bouncing messages.
> I am worried. Am I missing messages from my internet friends? Please
> send help.
>
> With much concern,
> R0b0t1
>

Hi,

I was just thinking about asking the same question, I also get those
recently.

Regards,
Branko

On 2018-03-01 14:42, R0b0t1 wrote:

> I keep getting emails from the mailer daemon about bouncing messages.
> I am worried. Am I missing messages from my internet friends? Please
> send help.

Do you mean the crud from outlook/365? I get that too; it's probably
because my list mail lacks DKIM sigs (intentionally so). But whatever
the reason it's horrifying brain damage on their part to send the
bounces to _me_ rather than the envelope sender which is the bounce
address of the list. Micro$oft may have softened from the 90s but it's
still breaking standard protocols left and right, it seems.

I have just configured my MTA to send bounces from their IP ranges to
/dev/null.

--
Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet,
if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup.
To reply privately _only_ on Usenet and on broken lists
which rewrite From, fetch the TXT record for no-use.mooo.com.

Branko Grubic wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2018 14:42:35 -0600
> R0b0t1 <r030t1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I keep getting emails from the mailer daemon about bouncing messages.
>> I am worried. Am I missing messages from my internet friends? Please
>> send help.
>>
>> With much concern,
>> R0b0t1
>>
> Hi,
>
> I was just thinking about asking the same question, I also get those
> recently.
>
> Regards,
> Branko
>
>


I have got a couple recently as well.  I wonder, can this be used to
retrieve those messages somehow??


Here is the list of the bounced messages:
- 182748
- 182749
- 182751


I keep my messages locally so when I miss messages, it can throw a thread into some random weirdness. If one uses the web interface to read/reply etc then it wouldn't matter but for those who use email software, it seems we are missing something.

I might also wonder, what happened to 182750??

Dale

:-) :-)

On Thu, 1 Mar 2018 16:38:42 -0600
Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:

> Branko Grubic wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Mar 2018 14:42:35 -0600
> > R0b0t1 <r030t1@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
...
>
>
> I have got a couple recently as well.  I wonder, can this be used to
> retrieve those messages somehow??
>
>
> Here is the list of the bounced messages:
> - 182748
> - 182749
> - 182751
>
>
> I keep my messages locally so when I miss messages, it can throw a
> thread into some random weirdness. If one uses the web interface to
> read/reply etc then it wouldn't matter but for those who use email
> software, it seems we are missing something.
>
> I might also wonder, what happened to 182750??
...

I have no idea, does it mean it bounced, and mailing list software did
re-send them later or not. I don't see a way to use those numbers to
find out which email message relates to the number. So no answer for
any of those.

But what is interesting is that all of us use gmail.

It could be that gmail is receiving a lot of messages from
lists.gentoo.org and that triggers some spam protection? :(

Regards,
Branko

On 2018-03-01 23:48, Branko Grubic wrote:

> > I keep my messages locally so when I miss messages, it can throw a
> > thread into some random weirdness. If one uses the web interface to
> > read/reply etc then it wouldn't matter but for those who use email
> > software, it seems we are missing something.

> I have no idea, does it mean it bounced, and mailing list software did
> re-send them later or not. I don't see a way to use those numbers to
> find out which email message relates to the number. So no answer for
> any of those.

Just to clarify: what I see is messages _I_ send to the list bounced by
some recipients (presumably list subscribers), the bounces coming from
Microsoft outlook/365 servers.

I myself don't seem miss to any messages in this list, and I get back
mine as well, which tells me this is not a problem with the list server.

--
Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet,
if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup.
To reply privately _only_ on Usenet and on broken lists
which rewrite From, fetch the TXT record for no-use.mooo.com.

Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On 2018-03-01 23:48, Branko Grubic wrote:
>
>>> I keep my messages locally so when I miss messages, it can throw a
>>> thread into some random weirdness. If one uses the web interface to
>>> read/reply etc then it wouldn't matter but for those who use email
>>> software, it seems we are missing something.
>> I have no idea, does it mean it bounced, and mailing list software did
>> re-send them later or not. I don't see a way to use those numbers to
>> find out which email message relates to the number. So no answer for
>> any of those.
> Just to clarify: what I see is messages _I_ send to the list bounced by
> some recipients (presumably list subscribers), the bounces coming from
> Microsoft outlook/365 servers.
>
> I myself don't seem miss to any messages in this list, and I get back
> mine as well, which tells me this is not a problem with the list server.
>


If it helps, this is the complete message headers and all that I got for
one of them.  Obviously, I'm editing out my email addy.  I get enough
spam as it is.  I'm replacing my email addy with ohnoyourenot even if it
is a partial.  It seems to me that they are coming from the Gentoo
servers BUT I'm no expert on these things. 


From - Wed Feb 28 18:03:16 2018
X-Account-Key: account2
X-UIDL: GmailId161dede902deb213
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-Mozilla-Keys:
Delivered-To: ohnoyourenot@gmail.com
Received: by 10.25.154.67 with SMTP id c64csp7109702lfe;
Wed, 28 Feb 2018 16:03:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELucwZNeFRXiKJjxlh2eudY7NO2VLO3a9qKkxD2klVL6Ox6wytGi7pvTBGED47eJF4jE6Cjx
X-Received: by 10.36.73.95 with SMTP id z92mr460219ita.38.1519862583426;
Wed, 28 Feb 2018 16:03:03 -0800 (PST)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1519862583; cv=none;
d=google.com; s=arc-20160816;
b=qfZuMfl7obhz2C7JcaZfXaanwriCPPw7BIFfP7XSK1HsMm9B0A6gXRSyAXXE74Ev1e
Kz+ECG1ljQ1cUrYvhIkGROJJdQ8RVTiMPHA13UfQO5tSbYC0jK3C2FKH1B46upQu6Qgy
0oufsqe5DqcI4XGZNtV6MFpAh5sa9JArxJRi2VhE03tsQ2H3sU3mur949sGOTYb03FGk
zrg/G+wjU1vYmBPej/93yKfKUSff1y1OEBNeWX9arCvReA0qQR478xS6x3QjPs1y7LNZ
WCD5mNYhdrh77iFnbB1BQFzNJ1NhvTgZapAP2Oaqv4dDy+/YFwpJpiaAsff4YMdvfjjD
mOXw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816;
h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:date:message-id:to:from
:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-owner:list-faq
:list-help:list-post:errors-to:precedence:subject
:arc-authentication-results;
bh=ZE0FyWZlIM4FKnvLuANrV6Ruv/741w0j0qAXZBDqGy0=;
b=vHxQPOk0fNvCMkSX69ytRVE8cKh4f4eV9AP11Rtg+svjrf1hi7nOs8HtX2ZABEo3TB
tRRI2dNkuOds3K4Lx2gasbo4/GeYU3Q6oOSUygkJx3sXTal8qtu8b0tpQzrjs84gPgs3
bog58QIgQUx/Rz+uExTICPdi5PQUxy+elgR2AFTvgOBeSpeKrqSVFU8/neSL0m6yXdqV
IkpepCs252y4NpuLCVmZAGRGyopMxhqeF4LOF2Z5VuT6ADlOT+1hFvtcKIr7a5poZt2A
5gydw0JcyrDB07i5UeVRwxcYb2HA2h23aWoRhgspWATtLMBGu6b++mvZI9tIODV1dNrM
dvAw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com;
spf=pass (google.com: domain of gentoo-user+bounces-probe-ohnoyourenot=gmail.com@lists.gentoo.org designates 208.92.234.80 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=gentoo-user+bounces-probe-ohnoyourenot1967=gmail.com@lists.gentoo.org;
dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=lists.gentoo.org
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-probe-ohnoyourenot=gmail.com@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org. [208.92.234.80])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q5si1660555ioq.283.2018.02.28.16.03.03
for <ohnoyourenot@gmail.com>
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Wed, 28 Feb 2018 16:03:03 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gentoo-user+bounces-probe-ohnoyourenot=gmail.com@lists.gentoo.org designates 208.92.234.80 as permitted sender) client-ip=208.92.234.80;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
spf=pass (google.com: domain of gentoo-user+bounces-probe-ohnoyourenot=gmail.com@lists.gentoo.org designates 208.92.234.80 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=gentoo-user+bounces-probe-ohnoyourenot=gmail.com@lists.gentoo.org;
dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=lists.gentoo.org
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E8BD7E0949
for <ohnoyourenot@gmail.com>; Thu, 1 Mar 2018 00:03:02 +0000 (UTC)
Subject:=?utf-8?q?_Bouncing_messages_from_gentoo-user=40lists.gentoo.org?=
Precedence: bulk
Errors-To: <"mailto:postmaster"@lists.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-FAQ: <mailto:gentoo-user+faq@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:gentoo-user+owner@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Archive: <https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-user/>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
From: gentoo-user+owner@lists.gentoo.org
To: ohnoyourenot@gmail.com
Message-ID: <1519862582-2667-mlmmj-153f10a0@lists.gentoo.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2018 00:03:02 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


Some messages to you could not be delivered. If you're seeing this
message it means things are back to normal, and it's merely for your
information.

Here is the list of the bounced messages:
- 182748
- 182749
- 182751




Hope that helps.

Dale

:-) :-)

On Thu, 1 Mar 2018 23:48:27 +0100, Branko Grubic wrote:

> > I have got a couple recently as well.  I wonder, can this be used to
> > retrieve those messages somehow??

Yes, send a help message to the list admin address, the details are on
the mailing list page at gentoo.org. You'll get back a list of commands
you can send, including one to retrieve individual messages.

> But what is interesting is that all of us use gmail.

What you meant to say was that all the respondents to date were using
gmail, I don't and I've also had a few of these in the past couple of
days.


--
Neil Bothwick

This tagline is baroque; please call Bach.

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2018 23:48:27 +0100, Branko Grubic wrote:
>
>>> I have got a couple recently as well.  I wonder, can this be used to
>>> retrieve those messages somehow??
> Yes, send a help message to the list admin address, the details are on
> the mailing list page at gentoo.org. You'll get back a list of commands
> you can send, including one to retrieve individual messages.
>

Tried that and didn't get anything.  Tried it twice.  Given some
messages are bouncing and the retrieve feature isn't working, I wonder
if there is some sort of issue, hardware or software, with the servers?? 

Weird.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

On 2018-03-01 18:12, Dale wrote:

> If it helps, this is the complete message headers and all that I got
> for one of them. Obviously, I'm editing out my email addy. I get
> enough spam as it is. I'm replacing my email addy with ohnoyourenot
> even if it is a partial. It seems to me that they are coming from the
> Gentoo servers BUT I'm no expert on these things.

Yes, this is sent by the gentoo server. It's different from what I
get, and it does mean the gentoo list server couldn't push some messages
to you, or so it thinks.

If you weren't on gmail, I'd say you might be the other side of the same
coin, i.e. the recipient who bounces my messages. But maybe there's a
common reason why both Goo and Micro$oft think my messages or maybe
other messages on this list are spam. The difference would be that Goo
at least bounces correctly, ie. to the MAIL FROM (aka envelope) address.

--
Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet,
if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup.
To reply privately _only_ on Usenet and on broken lists
which rewrite From, fetch the TXT record for no-use.mooo.com.

On 2018-03-01 18:12, Dale wrote:

> Here is the list of the bounced messages:
> - 182748
> - 182749
> - 182751

If you succeed in retrieving them, please let us know which ones they
were, so we can guess as to the cause.

--
Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet,
if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup.
To reply privately _only_ on Usenet and on broken lists
which rewrite From, fetch the TXT record for no-use.mooo.com.

On Thu, 01 Mar 2018 20:21:52 -0800
Ian Zimmerman <itz@very.loosely.org> wrote:
>On 2018-03-01 18:12, Dale wrote:
>
>> Here is the list of the bounced messages:
>> - 182748
>> - 182749
>> - 182751
>
>If you succeed in retrieving them, please let us know which ones they
>were, so we can guess as to the cause.
>

Just send an empty mail to:

<gentoo-user+get-N@lists.gentoo.org>

where ‘N’ is the message number, for instance:

<gentoo-user+get-182749@lists.gentoo.org>

and you should receive the requested mail (182749). I got it within one
minute.


--
Regards,
floyd

Floyd Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Mar 2018 20:21:52 -0800
> Ian Zimmerman <itz@very.loosely.org> wrote:
>> On 2018-03-01 18:12, Dale wrote:
>>
>>> Here is the list of the bounced messages:
>>> - 182748
>>> - 182749
>>> - 182751
>>
>> If you succeed in retrieving them, please let us know which ones they
>> were, so we can guess as to the cause.
>>
>
> Just send an empty mail to:
>
>    <gentoo-user+get-N@lists.gentoo.org>
>
> where ‘N’ is the message number, for instance:
>
>    <gentoo-user+get-182749@lists.gentoo.org>
>
> and you should receive the requested mail (182749). I got it within
> one minute.
>
>

Interesting.  The plot thickens.  I sent mine hours ago and got nothing
yet, other than the recent replies which are in sequence so far.  This
is what I sent to get them:

gentoo-user+get-182748@lists.gentoo.org

gentoo-user+get-182749@lists.gentoo.org

gentoo-user+get-182751@lists.gentoo.org

Those look like the same format as yours.  Wonder why I haven't got
anything yet?  Am I missing something?  I wonder if google is blocking
them.  I have to BCC myself to get my replies since google sends them to
/dev/null otherwise.  Annoying thing.  I keep saying I'm going to get a
real email but it's always next week, which never seems to get here.  :/

Dale

:-)  :-) 

On Thu, 01 Mar 2018 23:28:51 -0600
Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>Floyd Anderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Mar 2018 20:21:52 -0800
>> Ian Zimmerman <itz@very.loosely.org> wrote:
>>> On 2018-03-01 18:12, Dale wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here is the list of the bounced messages:
>>>> - 182748
>>>> - 182749
>>>> - 182751
>>>
>>> If you succeed in retrieving them, please let us know which ones they
>>> were, so we can guess as to the cause.
>>>
>>
>> Just send an empty mail to:
>>
>>    <gentoo-user+get-N@lists.gentoo.org>
>>
>> where ‘N’ is the message number, for instance:
>>
>>    <gentoo-user+get-182749@lists.gentoo.org>
>>
>> and you should receive the requested mail (182749). I got it within
>> one minute.
>>
>>
>
>Interesting.  The plot thickens.  I sent mine hours ago and got nothing
>yet, other than the recent replies which are in sequence so far.  This
>is what I sent to get them:
>
>gentoo-user+get-182748@lists.gentoo.org

that should give you [1]

>gentoo-user+get-182749@lists.gentoo.org

and also [2]

>gentoo-user+get-182751@lists.gentoo.org

and finally [3]. The sequence order shouldn’t play any role I think. A
year ago I got also massive bounces here (due to my mail provider) and
requested a bunch of (collected) list mails by a script – nearly without
problems (sometimes I had to do it twice for certain emails).

>Am I missing something?

I don’t think so. Did you previously receive a help message from
<gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>? Or just try your success with
<gentoo-user+get-182793@lists.gentoo.org> (my previous reply or try your
own [182794] email), so the Gentoo side can probably be excluded.

>I wonder if google is blocking them. I have to BCC myself to get my
>replies since google sends them to /dev/null otherwise. Annoying thing.

Since all three emails have the same source, I found some blacklist
results on [4] but I don’t know whether this is relevant, i.e. I’m
purely guessing here.


References:
  - [1] <https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-user/message/a29910d5d9a24cb23461a68302c029b1>
  - [2] <https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-user/message/e6b46a7c62da9497d8303e0b9ba255c2>
  - [3] <https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-user/message/49d45fd9a088b5717db8aa847fddeac9>
  - [4] <https://mxtoolbox.com/domain/tnetconsulting.net/>



--
Regards,
floyd

On Thu, 1 Mar 2018 14:42:35 -0600
R0b0t1 <r030t1@gmail.com> wrote:

> I keep getting emails from the mailer daemon about bouncing messages.
> I am worried. Am I missing messages from my internet friends? Please
> send help.
>
> With much concern,
> R0b0t1
>

I opened a bug[1] for the infra team, possibly they can analyze the
logs/reports to see why this happens.

[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/649366

On 03/01/18 12:42, R0b0t1 wrote:
> I keep getting emails from the mailer daemon about bouncing messages.
> I am worried. Am I missing messages from my internet friends? Please
> send help.
>
> With much concern,
> R0b0t1
>

I've noticed quite a few in the last couple weeks myself. Gmail perhaps
doesn't like mailer traffic now?

Although I don't recall ever getting any message about this in the past.

Dan

On 2018-03-02 12:04, Floyd Anderson wrote:

> <https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-user/message/a29910d5d9a24cb23461a68302c029b1>
> <https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-user/message/e6b46a7c62da9497d8303e0b9ba255c2>
> <https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-user/message/49d45fd9a088b5717db8aa847fddeac9>

These are all from Grant Taylor. They are DKIM-signed, and, not
surprisingly given the list header and footer munging, signature
verification fails (on my mail server).

Munging by lists should just die. Why do it? Windoze and Goo users may
have to split their mail into folders by Subject, but surely Gentooers
know better?

--
Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet,
if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup.
To reply privately _only_ on Usenet and on broken lists
which rewrite From, fetch the TXT record for no-use.mooo.com.

On Fri, 02 Mar 2018 08:36:23 -0800
Ian Zimmerman <itz@very.loosely.org> wrote:
>On 2018-03-02 12:04, Floyd Anderson wrote:
>
>> <https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-user/message/a29910d5d9a24cb23461a68302c029b1>
>> <https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-user/message/e6b46a7c62da9497d8303e0b9ba255c2>
>> <https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-user/message/49d45fd9a088b5717db8aa847fddeac9>
>
>These are all from Grant Taylor. They are DKIM-signed, and, not
>surprisingly given the list header and footer munging, signature
>verification fails (on my mail server).
>
>Munging by lists should just die. Why do it? Windoze and Goo users may
>have to split their mail into folders by Subject, but surely Gentooers
>know better?

Yes, after reading the Gmail log snippet from the bug that Branko has
filed, there is also a DMARC policy involved with an unauthenticated
email. The site linked in that snippet mentioned also:

“[…] Google rejects all messages from eBay or PayPal that aren’t
authenticated.”


--
Regards,
floyd

Floyd Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Mar 2018 23:28:51 -0600
> Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Floyd Anderson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 01 Mar 2018 20:21:52 -0800
>>> Ian Zimmerman <itz@very.loosely.org> wrote:
>>>> On 2018-03-01 18:12, Dale wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here is the list of the bounced messages:
>>>>> - 182748
>>>>> - 182749
>>>>> - 182751
>>>>
>>>> If you succeed in retrieving them, please let us know which ones they
>>>> were, so we can guess as to the cause.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just send an empty mail to:
>>>
>>>    <gentoo-user+get-N@lists.gentoo.org>
>>>
>>> where ‘N’ is the message number, for instance:
>>>
>>>    <gentoo-user+get-182749@lists.gentoo.org>
>>>
>>> and you should receive the requested mail (182749). I got it within
>>> one minute.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Interesting.  The plot thickens.  I sent mine hours ago and got nothing
>> yet, other than the recent replies which are in sequence so far.  This
>> is what I sent to get them:
>>
>> gentoo-user+get-182748@lists.gentoo.org
>
> that should give you [1]
>
>> gentoo-user+get-182749@lists.gentoo.org
>
> and also [2]
>
>> gentoo-user+get-182751@lists.gentoo.org
>
> and finally [3]. The sequence order shouldn’t play any role I think. A
> year ago I got also massive bounces here (due to my mail provider) and
> requested a bunch of (collected) list mails by a script – nearly
> without problems (sometimes I had to do it twice for certain emails).
>
>> Am I missing something?
>
> I don’t think so. Did you previously receive a help message from
> <gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>? Or just try your success with
> <gentoo-user+get-182793@lists.gentoo.org> (my previous reply or try
> your own [182794] email), so the Gentoo side can probably be excluded.
>
>> I wonder if google is blocking them. I have to BCC myself to get my
>> replies since google sends them to /dev/null otherwise. Annoying thing.
>
> Since all three emails have the same source, I found some blacklist
> results on [4] but I don’t know whether this is relevant, i.e. I’m
> purely guessing here.
>
>
> References:
>   - [1] <https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-user/message/a29910d5d9a24cb23461a68302c029b1>
>
>   - [2] <https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-user/message/e6b46a7c62da9497d8303e0b9ba255c2>
>
>   - [3] <https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-user/message/49d45fd9a088b5717db8aa847fddeac9>
>
>   - [4] <https://mxtoolbox.com/domain/tnetconsulting.net/>
>
>
>

I did send a help message first, so that I would know exactly what to
do.  I followed it.  Still, I don't think I received anything even now. 
I know I didn't get anything new for at least 15 or 20 minutes and even
then, it was a reply to a recent post.  I wouldn't think that would be a
missing message from a few days ago. 

Maybe it is something else.  Maybe it is google on my end in this case
anyway.  I dunno. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

On 03/02/2018 09:36 AM, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> These are all from Grant Taylor. They are DKIM-signed, and, not
> surprisingly given the list header and footer munging, signature
> verification fails (on my mail server).

Correct. DKIM verification is failing and my DMARC policy is configured
to REJECT messages that fail DKIM or SPF tests.

The reason that messages are being rejected is because of the DMARC
policy. 1) I publish DMARC records and 2) Gmail honor published DMARC
records.

The same type of problem will happen with any other sending domain that
publishes REJECT records to a recipient where the receiving server
honors said REJECT records.

This is not just me. More and more sending domains are publishing DMARC
records and more and more receiving servers are honoring said records.
Further, multiple governments are mandating that governmental agencies
and sub-contractors implement DMARC (which also means DKIM and SPF).
The US and Germany come to mind immediately. - This is a growing
change in the email industry. - I just happen to live towards (but not
on) the bleeding edge of email.

> Munging by lists should just die. Why do it? Windoze and Goo users may
> have to split their mail into folders by Subject, but surely Gentooers
> know better?

I do not believe that munging is a bad thing. I'll even go so far as to
say that I think it's a good thing. (This can turn into a long running
discussion that likely doesn't belong on the Gentoo-User mailing list.)

IMHO the biggest issue is that the messages aren't munged enough. From
also needs to be munged to make the message appear to be from a
different address. (Ideally one that the mailing list owns.)

I also think that any security headers that exist on the incoming
message should be removed as messages come into the mailing list and
certainly before going out from the mailing list.

- ARC-*
- Authentication-Results
- DKIM-*

Removing these extra headers should help ensure that they don't
accidentally get mis-interpreted by servers receiving messages from the
mailing list manager.

I have created a new email address in a sub-domain and (re)subscribed to
the Gentoo-User mailing list with it and unsubscribed my main email
address. This new sub-domain has a different DMARC policy ("NONE"
instead of "REJECT") and I'm hoping that it will minimize the number of
messages that get bounced. (This is the first time I'm testing it, so I
may not have things correctly configured for the new sub-domain yet.)



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 03/02/2018 02:52 PM, Dale wrote:
> I did send a help message first, so that I would know exactly what to do.
> I followed it. Still, I don't think I received anything even now.

I'm not surprised.

The testing that I did last night when you posted the links caused me to
believe that the original messages were re-sent to the requester the
exact same way that they were originally sent. (I actually like that
feature.)

I sort of expect that you won't get the re-sent message because it will
very likely fail the same tests that the original message failed.

> I know I didn't get anything new for at least 15 or 20 minutes and even
> then, it was a reply to a recent post. I wouldn't think that would be
> a missing message from a few days ago.
>
> Maybe it is something else. Maybe it is google on my end in this
> case anyway. I dunno.

The re-sent messages that I saw were the original message, re-sent.
This means that they would have the same subject, date, etc, not updated
for when you requested them to be re-sent. Thus if you're threading
messages, they will show up in the thread where the original message
belonged.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 03/02/2018 02:52 PM, Dale wrote:
>> I did send a help message first, so that I would know exactly what to
>> do.  I followed it.  Still, I don't think I received anything even now.
>
> I'm not surprised.
>
> The testing that I did last night when you posted the links caused me
> to believe that the original messages were re-sent to the requester
> the exact same way that they were originally sent.  (I actually like
> that feature.)
>
> I sort of expect that you won't get the re-sent message because it
> will very likely fail the same tests that the original message failed.
>
>> I know I didn't get anything new for at least 15 or 20 minutes and
>> even then, it was a reply to a recent post.  I wouldn't think that
>> would be a missing message from a few days ago.
>>
>> Maybe it is something else.  Maybe it is google on my end in this
>> case anyway.  I dunno.
>
> The re-sent messages that I saw were the original message, re-sent.
> This means that they would have the same subject, date, etc, not
> updated for when you requested them to be re-sent.  Thus if you're
> threading messages, they will show up in the thread where the original
> message belonged.
>
>
>

I admit.  This is all over my head.  I'm just hoping I didn't miss
anything important.  The biggest thing, some of you figured out what
happened, created a roach report and hopefully it will lead to a fix at
some point.  Heck, I'm happy that whatever the heck is going on, it will
be corrected. 

Now to go play with my new battery charger.  It's a XTAR VC4 with a
really pretty blue display.  O_O 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

On 03/02/2018 04:59 PM, Dale wrote:
> I admit. This is all over my head. I'm just hoping I didn't miss
> anything important. The biggest thing, some of you figured out what
> happened, created a roach report and hopefully it will lead to a fix
> at some point. Heck, I'm happy that whatever the heck is going on,
> it will be corrected.

I'm taking the fact that you're replying to my message to mean that you
did receive it. Which sounds like the workaround is functioning. :-)

> Now to go play with my new battery charger. It's a XTAR VC4 with a
> really pretty blue display. O_O

#hazFun



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 2018-03-02 15:51, Grant Taylor wrote:

> The reason that messages are being rejected is because of the DMARC
> policy. 1) I publish DMARC records and 2) Gmail honor published DMARC
> records.

[...]

> - This is a growing change in the email industry. - I just happen to
> live towards (but not on) the bleeding edge of email.

Flam^H^H^H^H value judgments aside, does DMARC also change the
long standing standard of sending rejections to the envelope address?

--
Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet,
if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup.
To reply privately _only_ on Usenet and on broken lists
which rewrite From, fetch the TXT record for no-use.mooo.com.

On 03/02/2018 05:47 PM, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> Flam^H^H^H^H value judgments aside, does DMARC also change the long
> standing standard of sending rejections to the envelope address?

No, DMARC should not change the principle operation of SMTP, save for
additional checks that messages must pass. All other aspects of sending
email should be the same.

MTAs should continue to send bounces back to the SMTP envelope address.
Though, ideally the MTA would reject the message during SMTP time
instead of accepting and bouncing the message.

DMARC does offer the ability to have reports about DMARC failures sent
to the domain publishing the DMARC record.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

> On 2 Mar 2018, at 22:51, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@gentoo.tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>
> On 03/02/2018 09:36 AM, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>> These are all from Grant Taylor. They are DKIM-signed, and, not surprisingly given the list header and footer munging, signature verification fails (on my mail server).
>
> Correct. DKIM verification is failing and my DMARC policy is configured to REJECT messages that fail DKIM or SPF tests.

My recollection is that I read this isn't that beneficial - that a policy of ~ is adequate.

Stroller.

On Thursday, March 1, 2018 11:38:42 PM CET Dale wrote:
> Branko Grubic wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Mar 2018 14:42:35 -0600
> >
> > R0b0t1 <r030t1@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I keep getting emails from the mailer daemon about bouncing messages.
> >> I am worried. Am I missing messages from my internet friends? Please
> >> send help.
> >>
> >> With much concern,
> >>
> >> R0b0t1
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was just thinking about asking the same question, I also get those
> > recently.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Branko
>
> I have got a couple recently as well. I wonder, can this be used to
> retrieve those messages somehow??
>
>
> Here is the list of the bounced messages:
> - 182748
> - 182749
> - 182751
>
>
> I keep my messages locally so when I miss messages, it can throw a thread
> into some random weirdness. If one uses the web interface to read/reply
> etc then it wouldn't matter but for those who use email software, it seems
> we are missing something.
>
> I might also wonder, what happened to 182750??

You probably received 182750.

I used to get these messages, this was caused by bad behaving spam filters on
the receiving mailserver.
I solved it by switching to different inbound mailservers.

--
Joost

On 03/03/2018 07:47 AM, Stroller wrote:
> My recollection is that I read this isn't that beneficial - that a policy
> of ~ is adequate.

I'm guessing that you're referring to SPF's "~all" policy.

Why, as a domain owner that knows for a fact where messages are sent
from, want to allow for the possibility of someone else spoofing
messages as my domain to be "…accepted but tagged…"?
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Policy_Framework)

I run the servers, I know the email infrastructure, I *KNOW* how email
is supposed to flow. So why give anyone an in rode?

Further, I accept any and all responsibility for the SPF record that I
publish blocking any legitimate email that I (*) send. The onus is on
me if I break delivery of email that I send.

* I do not consider messages from me re-sent by mailing lists to be
messages that I send. I say this because my email infrastructure does
NOT connect to any of the mailing list subscribers receiving email
infrastructure. IMHO the mailing list is sending a /new/ message to
those recipients. Said message just happens to be strongly based on a
message that I sent.

Finally, each and every single email administrator / domain owner / etc
is allowed to configure their systems as they see fit. If they (or I)
want to do something that will shoot them (or me) in the foot, who am I
(or you) to stop them (or me) from doing so?



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 03/03/2018 12:00 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
> * I do not consider messages from me re-sent by mailing lists to be
> messages that I send.  I say this because my email infrastructure does
> NOT connect to any of the mailing list subscribers receiving email
> infrastructure.  IMHO the mailing list is sending a /new/ message to
> those recipients.  Said message just happens to be strongly based on a
> message that I sent.

Further to this point…

When Dale (et al) requested that messages (which were reported in their
bounce notifications) be re-sent to them, those messages did NOT
originate from my email infrastructure in any capacity. They are
complete (re)generations by the mailing list manager.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die


P.S. If you can't tell, I have very strong opinions on things. I've
recently been stating that ARP is a layer 3 protocol, just like IP.
(They both have their own EtherType and ride on top of the L2 Ethernet
Protocol.) The only difference is that ARP is unrouted where as IP is
routed.

> On 3 Mar 2018, at 19:00, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@gentoo.tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>
> * I do not consider messages from me re-sent by mailing lists to be messages that I send. I say this because my email infrastructure does NOT connect to any of the mailing list subscribers receiving email infrastructure. IMHO the mailing list is sending a /new/ message to those recipients. Said message just happens to be strongly based on a message that I sent.

Yet the above had a from: address at the tnetconsulting.net domain.

Moaning to me won't change how the mailing list software works.

Stroller.

On 03/04/2018 05:45 AM, Stroller wrote:
> Yet the above had a from: address at the tnetconsulting.net domain.

Said from address was a sub-domain, which has a different DMARC policy.

> Moaning to me won't change how the mailing list software works.

Sharing my opinion on things without expecting anyone to change is not
moaning.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 08:51:10 -0500, Jack wrote:

> >> Now was there (I recall asking about this previously, but I forgot
> >> what the answer was) a way to get a message-ID from that internal
> >> number, or at least a way to get the address of the message's
> >> archive copy on the gentoo website?
> > I haven't found it, if so.
>
> Some time back I traded some emails with a sysadmin about this, and I'm
> pretty sure there is no way to make that translation.  The number is
> internal to the list software database and is apparently not surfaced
> anywhere except such messages.  In my case, I was usually able to to to
> the archive page for the list, and by displaying as messages (instead
> of threads) identify the one I never received.

You can also request redelivery of messages based on the internal numbers
if you follow the help advice in all list message headers.


--
Neil Bothwick

Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off NOW!

On 1/18/23 8:07 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> You can also request redelivery of messages based on the internal
> numbers if you follow the help advice in all list message headers.

The problem is that if the message is rejected because of filtering the
first time around, there's a very good chance that it will also be
filtered on subsequent re-delivery requests.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 1/18/23 8:07 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> You can also request redelivery of messages based on the internal
>> numbers if you follow the help advice in all list message headers.
>
> The problem is that if the message is rejected because of filtering
> the first time around, there's a very good chance that it will also be
> filtered on subsequent re-delivery requests.
>
>
>


I might add, in the past I followed the instructions to get bounced
messages, I've never once had it work.  I don't get a error or anything
either, like I do if I do something wrong doing something else. 

Just a FYI. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Dave

On Wed, Jan 18, 2023, 18:20 Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:

> Grant Taylor wrote:
> > On 1/18/23 8:07 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> >> You can also request redelivery of messages based on the internal
> >> numbers if you follow the help advice in all list message headers.
> >
> > The problem is that if the message is rejected because of filtering
> > the first time around, there's a very good chance that it will also be
> > filtered on subsequent re-delivery requests.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> I might add, in the past I followed the instructions to get bounced
> messages, I've never once had it work. I don't get a error or anything
> either, like I do if I do something wrong doing something else.
>
> Just a FYI.
>
> Dale
>
> :-) :-)
>
>

On 1/18/23 4:19 PM, Dale wrote:
> I might add, in the past I followed the instructions to get bounced
> messages, I've never once had it work. I don't get a error or anything
> either, like I do if I do something wrong doing something else.

I tried it a few times.

I'd see mail log entries where the re-sent messages would fail the same
way that the original sent message failed. :-/



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 1/18/23 4:19 PM, Dale wrote:
>> I might add, in the past I followed the instructions to get bounced
>> messages, I've never once had it work.  I don't get a error or
>> anything either, like I do if I do something wrong doing something else.
>
> I tried it a few times.
>
> I'd see mail log entries where the re-sent messages would fail the
> same way that the original sent message failed.  :-/
>
>
>


That could be.  I disabled spam protection on the Google end and I never
have problems with messages from other sites.  As far as I can recall,
the only time I've had bounced messages is from a Gentoo mailing list. 
Anyway, after trying to get missed messages a few times, I finally
figured out it was a waste of time.  I'd like to have them but if I
can't get them, well, no point trying.  It could be the OP is running
into the same problem I have in the past, whatever that problems is.  I
might add, I don't recall seeing anything that leads me to believe I
actually missed any messages.  I tent to follow most threads and I don't
recall ever seeing a quoted message that I don't have the original of. 
The only exception is one person who I have blacklisted.  Those I never
get. 

It's odd in my opinion.  Maybe someone will figure it out. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Grant,

On Thursday, 2023-01-19 22:59:48 -0700, you wrote:

> ...
> I tried it a few times.
>
> I'd see mail log entries where the re-sent messages would fail the same
> way that the original sent message failed. :-/

Me too :-(

But isn't this changeable? It's a list maintained by Gentoo.Org, after
all. Gentoo is famous for its customizability, but the organization of
its mailing lists is not adaptable to new requirements? Does this mail-
ing software run under Windows?

Either these mail identification numbers should be somehow visible and
in particular searchable at

https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-user/

or the mail that some mail couldn't be delivered should contain more in-
formation like author, date and subject.

DOES REALLY NOBODY CARE?

Sincerely,
Rainer

On 1/20/23 2:07 AM, Dale wrote:
> It could be the OP is running into the same problem I have in the
> past, whatever that problems is.

My experience is that this is a combination of advanced email protection
on the sender /and/ the receiver.

E.g. the sending domain's email configuration specifies very specific
locations combined with a receiving domain's email configuration
honoring what the sending domain publishes. Thus when a message passes
through a 3rd party, saying a mailing list, the recipient refuses to
accept the message because it's not from where the sender says the
message is authorized to come from.

There's a lot of minutia to this and lots of ways that this can fail.

Yes, there are some things that the Gentoo Users mailing list can
change, but do to various reasons, this isn't done all the time.

> I might add, I don't recall seeing anything that leads me to believe
> I actually missed any messages. I tent to follow most threads and
> I don't recall ever seeing a quoted message that I don't have the
> original of.

My experience is similar.

> It's odd in my opinion. Maybe someone will figure it out.

I think it's been figured out. This is where "this isn't done all the
time" comes into play.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On Friday, 20 January 2023 14:44:24 GMT Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 1/20/23 2:07 AM, Dale wrote:

> > It's odd in my opinion. Maybe someone will figure it out.
>
> I think it's been figured out. This is where "this isn't done all the
> time" comes into play.

I'm still getting bounce messages the same as all year.

--
Regards,
Peter.

On 1/20/23 9:09 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> I'm still getting bounce messages the same as all year.

Different meaning of "all the time".

- Not all sending domains use advanced security.

- Not all receiving domains use advanced security.

- Not all mailing lists account for advanced security.

It's the overlap of those three things that suggest if a message will be
bounced or accepted.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 2023-01-20, Dr Rainer Woitok wrote:

[...]
> Either these mail identification numbers should be somehow visible and
> in particular searchable at
>
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-user/
>
> or the mail that some mail couldn't be delivered should contain more in-
> formation like author, date and subject.

And Message-ID... at least that one would enable searching for the
specific message in other archives too.

(Also, why is Date different between the actual message and the web
archive under gentoo.org?)

--
Nuno Silva