[OT] Tim, Gil, et. al. (e-mail address settings)

[Joel Rees]

To keep this off-list as much as possible, the rant is here:

http://reiisi.blogspot.com/2016/07/to-gil-tim-fedora-et-al.html

(The blame lies elsewhere. I wish I had the network and social cred to
get a real movement started, away from the current faceless CA system
and towards a different identity assurance system that depends on
actual, existing day-to-day trust relationships.)

[gil]

Il 01/07/2016 01:54, Joel Rees ha scritto:
>  To keep this off-list as much as possible, the rant is here:
>
>  http://reiisi.blogspot.com/2016/07/to-gil-tim-fedora-et-al.html
>
>  (The blame lies elsewhere. I wish I had the network and social cred to
>  get a real movement started, away from the current faceless CA system
>  and towards a different identity assurance system that depends on
>  actual, existing day-to-day trust relationships.) 
hi
as i wrote in the past i dont care about your spam problems
i dont want to use other providers ... so bored ...
you dont have something else more interesting to write? No?
then I'm not interested, i think i will add between unwelcome contact 
your email
thanks
regards
.g

[Jeffrey Ollie]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:42 AM, gil <puntogil(a)libero.it&gt; wrote:

>  Il 01/07/2016 01:54, Joel Rees ha scritto:
>
>  To keep this off-list as much as possible, the rant is here:
>  http://reiisi.blogspot.com/2016/07/to-gil-tim-fedora-et-al.html
>
>  (The blame lies elsewhere. I wish I had the network and social cred to
>  get a real movement started, away from the current faceless CA system
>  and towards a different identity assurance system that depends on
>  actual, existing day-to-day trust relationships.)
>
>  hi
>  as i wrote in the past i dont care about your spam problems
>  i dont want to use other providers ... so bored ...
>  you dont have something else more interesting to write? No?
>  then I'm not interested, i think i will add between unwelcome contact your
>  email
>  
Gil, you don't seem to realize that this isn't *our* spam problem, it's
*yours*. It's pretty much guaranteed that all of your email sent to the
Fedora mailing lists ends up in the spam folder of people that use GMail.
There are probably many other providers that do the same. And due to the
way that GMail is marking your mail as spam, there's nothing that GMail
users can do to change that.

You're lucky that a few of us are conscientious enough to look through our
spam folder for your emails (as well of a few other Fedora contributors
that get their email routed to the spam folder on a consistent basis). Most
of the Fedora contributors that use GMail probably don't bother.

As has been explained a number of times to you, only you (or your email
provider) can fix this. You seem to want to be a good Fedora contributor,
but whenever someone tries to discuss the issue with you, you've proven to
be hostile and uncaring. No one has asked you to switch to another email
provider, you just need to have the one you use fix the issues that have
been described to you.

-- 
Jeff Ollie

[gil]

Il 01/07/2016 18:41, Jeffrey Ollie ha scritto:
>  Gil, you don't seem to realize that this isn't *our* spam
> problem, 
>  it's *yours*. It's pretty much guaranteed that all of your email sent 
>  to the Fedora mailing lists ends up in the spam folder of people that 
>  use GMail. There are probably many other providers that do the same. 
>  And due to the way that GMail is marking your mail as spam, there's 
>  nothing that GMail users can do to change that.
>  
>  You're lucky that a few of us are conscientious enough to look
> through 
>  our spam folder for your emails (as well of a few other Fedora 
>  contributors that get their email routed to the spam folder on a 
>  consistent basis). Most of the Fedora contributors that use GMail 
>  probably don't bother.
>  
then use you another provider
>  As has been explained a number of times to you, only you (or your 
>  email provider) can fix this. You seem to want to be a good Fedora 
>  contributor, but whenever someone tries to discuss the issue with you, 
>  you've proven to be hostile and uncaring. No one has asked you to 
>  switch to another email provider, you just need to have the one you 
>  use fix the issues that have been described to you.
>
>  -- 
>  Jeff Ollie 
repeat my self for last time: is not a my problem.
if you want block another time my fedora account, please,
take a seat
regards
.g

[Corey Sheldon]

Inline replies.


On 07/01/2016 05:12 PM, gil wrote:
>  Il 01/07/2016 18:41, Jeffrey Ollie ha scritto:
> > Gil, you don't seem to realize that this isn't *our* spam problem,
> > it's *yours*. It's pretty much guaranteed that all of your email sent
> > to the Fedora mailing lists ends up in the spam folder of people that
> > use GMail. There are probably many other providers that do the same.
> > And due to the way that GMail is marking your mail as spam, there's
> > nothing that GMail users can do to change that.
> > 
I use gmail and have for Fedora MLs and have no issues Gil But I also
spent teh time to talk to Gmail about  having  previously greylisted
senders whitelisted on their end on ALL 4 of my gmails,  Also I went to
use a fwding alias where it was still an issue,  Maybe you should too.
> >
> > You're lucky that a few of us are conscientious enough to look
> > through our spam folder for your emails (as well of a few other
> > Fedora contributors that get their email routed to the spam folder on
> > a consistent basis). Most of the Fedora contributors that use GMail
> > probably don't bother.
> >
>  then use you another provider 
Or use a work or  secondary email as a fwd alias  as
I mentioned  above.
> > As has been explained a number of times to you, only you (or
> your
> > email provider) can fix this. You seem to want to be a good Fedora
> > contributor, but whenever someone tries to discuss the issue with
> > you, you've proven to be hostile and uncaring. No one has asked you
> > to switch to another email provider, you just need to have the one
> > you use fix the issues that have been described to you.
> >
> > -- 
> > Jeff Ollie
>  repeat my self for last time: is not a my problem.
>  if you want block another time my fedora account, please,
>  take a seat 
We on our end are  not  blocking you its the fact that Gmail has a very
iffy at  times grey-listing  behavior
>  regards
>  .g
>
>
>  --
>  devel mailing list
>  devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[e-mail] 
-- 
----
Corey W. Sheldon
PGP: 
0x5A88E539 / C006 564F FA67 CDEA E29B F202 8B4E 8943 5A88 E539
0xD2264944 / 6292 9ABD 6374 6AA7 6D4B 730F 5927 6298 D226 4944
Find me elsewhere: https://gist.github.com/linux-modder/ac5dc6fa211315c633c9

Confidentiality Note:  This message is intended for use only by the individual or entity
to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential,
and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the

intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this
communication 
in error, please contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in its entirety,
whether electronic or hard copy.

[Dan Book]

>  repeat my self for last time: is not a my problem.
>  if you want block another time my fedora account, please,
>  take a seat
>  regards
>  .g
>  
Nobody is blocking you. But aside from this one instance I went digging
through my spam folder, I do not see your messages, and I suspect many
others do not either. Communication doesn't work if you can't reach the
audience, quite literally in this case. But if you don't care, then that's
all.
-Grinnz

[gil]

Il 01/07/2016 22:19, Dan Book ha scritto:
>  Nobody is blocking you. But aside from this one instance I went 
>  digging through my spam folder, I do not see your messages, and I 
>  suspect many others do not either. Communication doesn't work if you 
>  can't reach the audience, quite literally in this case. But if you 
>  don't care, then that's all.
>  -Grinnz 
for all my packages, if necessary, each may file a bug?
when I am available @ # fedora-java all can contact me?
I do not see the problem
perhaps gmail has not provided a button for cleaning the spam folder?
I do not want to return to this topic again
regards

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Fri, 2016-07-01 at 16:19 -0400, Dan Book wrote:
>  Nobody is blocking you. But aside from this one instance I went
>  digging
>  through my spam folder, I do not see your messages, and I suspect
>  many
>  others do not either. Communication doesn't work if you can't reach
>  the
>  audience, quite literally in this case. But if you don't care, then
>  that's
>  all.
>  -Grinnz 
I checked my spam folder. All of gil's mails have been going there.
There is this helpful message:

"Why is this message in Spam? It has a from address in libero.it but
has failed libero.it's required tests for authentication."

There is documentation for this:

https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1366858

which points to:

https://dmarc.org/overview/

I don't understand email, but I suspect gil's problem has something to
do with that.

Michael

P.S. gil, keep in mind that we're not going to see your replies. ;)

[Neal Gompa]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org&gt; wrote:
>  On Fri, 2016-07-01 at 16:19 -0400, Dan Book wrote:
> > Nobody is blocking you. But aside from this one instance I went
> > digging
> > through my spam folder, I do not see your messages, and I suspect
> > many
> > others do not either. Communication doesn't work if you can't reach
> > the
> > audience, quite literally in this case. But if you don't care, then
> > that's
> > all.
> > -Grinnz
>
>  I checked my spam folder. All of gil's mails have been going there.
>  There is this helpful message:
>
>  "Why is this message in Spam? It has a from address in libero.it but
>  has failed libero.it's required tests for authentication."
>
>  There is documentation for this:
>
>  https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1366858
>
>  which points to:
>
>  https://dmarc.org/overview/
>
>  I don't understand email, but I suspect gil's problem has something to
>  do with that.
>
>  Michael
>
>  P.S. gil, keep in mind that we're not going to see your replies. ;) 
I took a look at the various emails in this thread, and gil's
responses have the following information in the headers:

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([151.60.59.123])
by smtp-33.iol.local with SMTP
id J1zHbqsAiP9dYJ1zHbpzMg; Fri, 01 Jul 2016 19:12:20 +0200
x-libjamoibt: 1601

The information indicates that somewhere along the line, there's an
unauthenticated server doing its own mail transport in the chain. It
also adds a tag that is unique to emails from him, of which I'm unsure
whether it's legit or some kind of tag injection. libero.it also
passes its own information of what servers it considers are valid MTA
sources for its email.



-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!

[gil]

Il 02/07/2016 00:02, Michael Catanzaro ha scritto:
>  P.S. gil, keep in mind that we're not going to see your replies.
I can not care less. better that way

[Michael Scherer]

On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 05:02:58PM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>  On Fri, 2016-07-01 at 16:19 -0400, Dan Book wrote:
>  > Nobody is blocking you. But aside from this one instance I went
>  > digging
>  > through my spam folder, I do not see your messages, and I suspect
>  > many
>  > others do not either. Communication doesn't work if you can't reach
>  > the
>  > audience, quite literally in this case. But if you don't care, then
>  > that's
>  > all.
>  > -Grinnz
>  
>  I checked my spam folder. All of gil's mails have been going there.
>  There is this helpful message:
>  
>  "Why is this message in Spam? It has a from address in libero.it but
>  has failed libero.it's required tests for authentication."
>  
>  There is documentation for this:
>  
>  https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1366858
>  
>  which points to:
>  
>  https://dmarc.org/overview/
>  
>  I don't understand email, but I suspect gil's problem has something to
>  do with that. 
So that's rather fast to explain. Libero.it use this SPF record:

$ host -t TXT  libero.it
libero.it descriptive text "v=spf1 ip4:212.48.25.128/25 ip4:212.48.14.160/27 
include:srs.bis.na.blackberry.com include:srs.bis.eu.blackberry.com 
include:srs.bis.ap.blackberry.com include:mail.zendesk.com -all"

basically, if the mail do not come from zendesk or blackberry servers, or from the
ranges 212.48.25.128/25 or 212.48.14.160/27, the provider (libero.it) say 
this is a fake mail and a spam (the -all).

A quick look at the headers of mail send by Gil show that indeed, the mail 
do not come from any of the servers authorized to send mail 
on behalf of libero.it.

Ergo, Gmail tag that as spam, because Libero.it say to do so in explicit
and standard respecting way.

So either libero.it change the SPF record, or Gil start to to use libero.it
SMTP, or use a different email in the 'from' header.

We can't really ask to all providers (ie, more than gmail) who use SPF to not listen 
to libero.it constraints, for obvious reasons (like "libero.it is fully
authorized to do what they see fit with their domain" being the first one).

-- 
Michael Scherer

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 00:48:14 +0200,
  Michael Scherer <misc(a)zarb.org&gt; wrote:
> So that's rather fast to explain. Libero.it use this SPF record:
Isn't SPF tied to the envelope sender address and not the From: header? 
The messages do have an envelope sender address for the list, so I don't 
think SPF should be triggering this problem. SPF is an issue with forwarding 
where the envelope sender address is preserved. (Though it can be written 
if you are willing to relay stuff back to the original sender.)

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(a)wolff.to&gt; said:
>  On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 00:48:14 +0200,
>   Michael Scherer <misc(a)zarb.org&gt; wrote:
>  >So that's rather fast to explain. Libero.it use this SPF record:
>  
>  Isn't SPF tied to the envelope sender address and not the From:
>  header? 
Yes.  Like I said earlier, the problem is DMARC, which is based on the
header From: address.  libero.it has the following DMARC policy record:

"v=DMARC1\; p=quarantine\; rua= mailto:[e-mail],
mailto:[e-mail]\; "

So, their policy says that non-conforming messages should be quarantined
by receivers of those messages.  Mailing lists that don't rewrite the
header From: address will cause messages from domains with DMARC
policies of quarantine or reject to be a problem for mail servers that
apply DMARC policies.
-- 
Chris Adams <linux(a)cmadams.net&gt;

[OT] Re: [OT] Tim, Gil, et. al. (e-mail address settings)

[Sérgio Basto]

On Sex, 2016-07-01 at 21:40 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
>  Once upon a time, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(a)wolff.to&gt; said:
>  > 
>  > On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 00:48:14 +0200,
>  >  Michael Scherer <misc(a)zarb.org&gt; wrote:
>  > > 
>  > > So that's rather fast to explain. Libero.it use this SPF record:
>  > Isn't SPF tied to the envelope sender address and not the From:
>  > header?
>  Yes.  Like I said earlier, the problem is DMARC, which is based on
>  the
>  header From: address.  libero.it has the following DMARC policy
>  record:
>  
>  "v=DMARC1\; p=quarantine\; rua= mailto:[e-mail],
>  mailto:[e-mail]\; " 
Hi, I setup my email with DMARC yesterday reading "How to Setup DMARC
records in cPanel" [1] , and check today with 
http://www.mail-tester.com/

Seems common mail servers don't setup DMARC records in dns, it OT but
it may help improve mail servers. 

[1]   
http://www.inmotionhosting.com/support/email/fighting-spam/dmarc-setup


>  So, their policy says that non-conforming messages should be
>  quarantined
>  by receivers of those messages.  Mailing lists that don't rewrite the
>  header From: address will cause messages from domains with DMARC
>  policies of quarantine or reject to be a problem for mail servers
>  that
>  apply DMARC policies. 
-- 
Sérgio M. B.

[Nico Kadel-Garcia]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Joel Rees <joel.rees(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  To keep this off-list as much as possible, the rant is here:
>
>  http://reiisi.blogspot.com/2016/07/to-gil-tim-fedora-et-al.html
>
>  (The blame lies elsewhere. I wish I had the network and social cred to
>  get a real movement started, away from the current faceless CA system
>  and towards a different identity assurance system that depends on
>  actual, existing day-to-day trust relationships.) 
Notes from an old, very experienced spam hunter here. (I was part of
the group that went after Canter & Siegel, the first Usenet spammers
and one of the first email spammers.)

Most of the difficulty is with the use of SPF, and the unwillingness
of third-party forwarders to profide "SRS", See
http://www.openspf.org/SRS for an explanation of the problem with
email servers that forward email, without rewriting the "MAIL FROM:"
address so that the forwarding server gets bounce messages, not some
innocent third party whose address was forged by a spammer.

The problem is not going away: companies or large mail servers that
fail to publish SPF records can be flooded by bounce messages for spam
they never sent or allowed to be sent, and can wind up blacklisted
because of forged spam from the relevant domain. And it's been a very
helpful filter for Gmail and many other services:

Anger won't solve the problem. Providing robust SRS and encouraging
its use by domains that forward email, can deal with most of  the
current problems.