[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DLAs not arriving at my mailbox and I think it may be a general issue

On Sun, 03 Feb 2019, Ola Lundqvist wrote:

> Hi
> I can understand the view that gmail, yahoo and others are to blame for the
> lost message. It is after all that service that rejected it. I do however
> think we need to live with the fact that we may have users that tend to use
> such services. If it is just for me I can safely ignore the problem. These
> emails are not that valuable to me, really. The reason why I brought this
> up was to ensure that our users do not have the same problem.
> If we conclude that this is not so important, then I can live with it.
> I cannot tell for sure what the fault was with that email. I'm not even
> sure there were any specific fault with it. It may have been the rate of
> things arriving or some similar factor.
> What I can tell is that lists.d.o do not follow gmail recommendations. And
> some of them are generally good to avoid spam and other stuff.
Several of those recommendations are nonsense. 
> First of all the reverse address is not the same as the forward address:
> ola@tigereye:~/git/security-tracker$ getent hosts
>   bendel.debian.org
> ola@tigereye:~/git/security-tracker$ getent hosts bendel.debian.org
> 2001:41b8:202:deb:216:36ff:fe40:4002 bendel.debian.org
Like that one. 

> I guess bendel has both IPv4 and IPv6. The reason why it was using IPv4
> this time was that my server do not have an IPv6 address. I guess this is
> quite common too even though IPv6 gets more and more common these days.
> There is no SPF record for lists.debian.org. Should'nt we have that?
no, the RFC says its not required. 
> I guess these two problems above are a strong factor in this.
> And then finally the from address vary. I can understand that it may not be
> the best to change that, but maybe we should have this as a per-list option.
No chance. I would even leave the project when we start the *censored* of
rewriting from addresses. 


Reply to: