[Discuss] DMARC issue, Yahoo and beyond

[jabr at blu.org (John Abreau)]

There's no downside? I think you're assuming too much.

Jerry emailed me this morning to tell me that he can't upgrade Mailman
without first upgrading its dependencies, including python, and those
upgrades would likely break the OS, as it's gotten fairly old.

We're currently waiting on Earthlink to provide VMs to replace our physical
servers, and when they eventually provision them, we'll migrate everything
off the old servers and onto VMs running a current OS release.

The VM running the new mail server will have the newest Mailman release, so
addressing the dmark issue at that time should be simple and
straightforward. Addressing it immediately would involve purchasing new
server hardware and building a new mail server, which we'd then be phasing
out when the VMs become available.

Also, the BLU server hardware has traditionally been donated, so spending a
lot of money on a new server would be a significant burden.

I'd argue that this burden can reasonably be described as a large downside.




On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu) <blu at nedharvey.com
> wrote:

> > From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey.com at blu.org [mailto:discuss-
> > bounces+blu=nedharvey.com at blu.org] On Behalf Of Bill Horne
> >
> > > I think you mean to say, nothing special is done.
> >
> > That's not necessarily a bad thing. If Yahoo is a stalking horse for
> > GooHotMess, the Yahoo execs may be looking to see how many email
> > admins
> > knuckle under and feed their fantasy of total control.
>
> Did you even read the rest?  I'm in shock to hear so many heads buried in
> the sand.  Ignoring them does NOT hurt yahoo in any way.  Ignoring them
> hurts everyone else.
>
> If somebody posts to the list using a dmarc policy of reject, *you* will
> be unsubscribed from the list instead of them, because *your* email address
> is the one that will bounce.  Not theirs.  Read the rest of the message.
>  Quoted below for your convenience.
>
> There's a really simple straightforward fix that literally has no impact
> on the rest of us; it has all upside and no downside.  Only users posting
> from an address with a reject or quarantine policy will have their from
> address munged.  Which makes the list safe for everyone else.
>
>
> > From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey.com at blu.org [mailto:discuss-
> > bounces+blu=nedharvey.com at blu.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey
> >
> > I think you mean to say, nothing special is done.  Which means, if
> anybody
> > posts to the list from a yahoo address (or any domain where dmarc is set
> to
> > reject or quarantine) then any recipients on google, microsoft, or other
> > domains where sender dmarc policy is honored, will bounce.  And the end
> > result is, anybody sends from Yahoo will result in *other* people getting
> > unsubscribed from the list because their mail bounces.
> >
> > The official mailman suggestion, created specifically for this purpose,
> is to set
> > from_is_list = no, and set dmark_moderation_action = munge.
> >
> > This way, all the users currently using the list experience no change.
>  You and
> > I post to the list, and it goes through same as always.
> >
> > But somebody posts to the list from a domain where dmarc policy is
> reject or
> > quarantine, their from address will be munged, so it's safe for everyone
> else
> > to receive it.
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>



-- 
John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix
Email jabr at blu.org / WWW http://www.abreau.net / 2013 PGP-Key-ID 0x920063C6
2013 / ID 0x920063C6 / FP A5AD 6BE1 FEFE 8E4F 5C23  C2D0 E885 E17C 9200 63C6
2011 / ID 0x32A492D8 / FP 7834 AEC2 EFA3 565C A4B6  9BA4 0ACB AD85 32A4 92D8