Mailing List Archive

> 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