From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:1004:224b::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms19.migadu.com with LMTPS id EPUqFhD9MGfasgAA62LTzQ:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 19:36:00 +0100 Received: from mta0.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:1004:224b::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1.migadu.com with LMTPS id EPUqFhD9MGfasgAA62LTzQ (envelope-from ); Sun, 10 Nov 2024 19:36:00 +0100 X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hpfr.net; s=key1; t=1731263760; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=hkcETjL8SanS4KHvokUY4gC+uWGBStHlLcD8+ymkoaM=; b=ClPV2GgNR+B4mmKrZnB1zxhLeenoh6MKjcd40X7flVSDiEkpfXqxxl/Z/nz6bE/ZaZO3hS Z+db7+OvYpZzebJCDtD1cJy1OFs9dp2PHHzQv4aWiiCgWcn9MyMSQ4ceNLLpi/CMboKa0V muAcGqfV58FZ7pWtePjAxQUtiDYQbxwSV9mRTMCxKO1bxZMwXh6/CT8DcVdYPYVApTDYh4 tyfkaH8WU8VmEY+uKjKBFQc6SGSr0fSx4lrxOqHDNzRMdNALmRVoGmdgRKOONKKYasyAaN 9rw8HYcMIPouQLmG+8HENHVMIh0Q+Nf3MQBZV7v0ti3K5cSTUr3/8cPbElznSA== From: Liam Hupfer To: Kyle Meyer Cc: misc@inbox.kyleam.com Subject: Re: From header mangling for some debbugs mail to yhetil.org In-Reply-To: <87mslb69vt.fsf@kyleam.com> References: <877cchtb9p.fsf@hpfr.net> <87mslb69vt.fsf@kyleam.com> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 12:35:53 -0600 Message-ID: <878qtr7x86.fsf@hpfr.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT X-TUID: hmwgqZEIGQj6 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Kyle, just getting back to this now. Kyle Meyer writes: > Liam Hupfer writes: >> I noticed some messages involving debbugs end up with =E2=80=9Cvia =E2=80=9D >> in the From header, but not others. > > My understanding is that this From rewriting is due to how the admins > have configured Mailman. > > > > Here=E2=80=99s a previous discussion related to this on guix-devel: > > > >> As far as I can tell, these rewritten From headers don=E2=80=99t show up= in >> the archives at lists.gnu.org or debbugs.gnu.org. > > I don=E2=80=99t know what the underlying setup is there, but my guess is = that > those services get the messages before the rewrite. yhetil.org receives > messages as any regular list subscriber would. > > If you look through other archives (e.g., > ), you=E2=80=99ll spot so= me > =E2=80=9Cvia=E2=80=9D senders. Yup, I see them on emacs-devel as well. I think you=E2=80=99re exactly righ= t about all of this (as well as the bit about different configurations (no DKIM) likely causing the differing behavior given a particular sender). I did some more digging and found that Konstantin Ryabitsev=E2=80=99s [Subs= pace mailing list server announcement] discusses appeasing DMARC. He argues that mailing lists shouldn=E2=80=99t have to munge the From header assuming= they set the envelope-from address to the list domain and don=E2=80=99t fiddle w= ith any DKIM-signed content. I=E2=80=99m inclined to take the kernel.org list administrator at his word on the subject. So I guess I would have to convince the Mailman 2 maintainers to expose this DMARC mitigation policy (or lack thereof) as an option, and then convince the GNU sysadmins to upgrade. No idea how feasible that is. For now, I set `p=3Dnone' in my DMARC record. Not ideal, but I don=E2=80=99= t think I=E2=80=99m at much risk of impersonation anyway. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction! =E2=80=94Liam [Subspace mailing list server announcement] --=-=-=--