From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E260C138350 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 18:54:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0FD68E09CF; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 18:54:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from s1.swsch.de (s1.swsch.de [IPv6:2a01:4f8:a0:8074::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFBC1E09B5 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 18:54:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xss.de; s=s1; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Subject:To: Message-ID:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Cc; bh=DAKEjUB5smeOFyPJf47IPiocGonKL4njKB4SOz/p2Qg=; b=BcCTFbeFkoaQ5xvS9Jx1QWt5LU 7gbP+cl0EXOsqI2FDXIx0ncc66Oahl1ndvKG2g955/LfXUeQGP1jvdgiqJI/Z3VR9F/yc20HS1bEv dNxaV9w/xM+QGQIvTQCKE7RRpmBm9HaZLpIpIffGZIRUK/J4bM4PROF0bcyardfY/x7E=; Received: from [2003:d4:4710:af00:5c12:ad9:2c4c:628b] (helo=PC-DEV.fritz.box) by s1.swsch.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93.0.4) (envelope-from ) id 1jLtMb-0006dX-PA; Tue, 07 Apr 2020 20:54:21 +0200 Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 20:54:21 +0200 From: Stefan Schmiedl Organization: EDV-Beratung Schmiedl Message-ID: <63372566.20200407205421@xss.de> To: Michael Orlitzky , gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Alternate Incoming Mail Server In-Reply-To: <35caf124-9854-6d51-9745-a48d80e91417@gentoo.org> References: <20200406153445.yzeewcorrb7vjtni@ad-gentoo-main> <3d992689-1f33-f2b1-d94a-87ddeaa41230@gentoo.org> <1262066889.20200406201306@xss.de> <2361732.4XsnlVU6TS@lenovo.localdomain> <35caf124-9854-6d51-9745-a48d80e91417@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scan-Signature: 1bef90daf39ac1d09820ef4d5acb204b X-Archives-Salt: ce5cd9e6-d6d8-4ff4-8196-24895eb6c8c1 X-Archives-Hash: 57441c67f3572df08807c59709c012b4 "Michael Orlitzky" , 07.04.2020, 20:34: > Blaming lists.gentoo.org (or any other MTA) for not retrying after a 4xx > without evidence is seeing hoof prints and thinking zebras. Ockham's > razor: you fucked up. I'm watching my exim logs right now and can confirm that the gentoo mailing list server does cope well with greylisting, i.e. it attempts delivery again after a few minutes. Also, messages from me to others pass DKIM checks, unless they are modified by what you suggested: > DKIM fails on many mailing lists. This list, for example, modifies your > subject to add "[gentoo user]" but leaves the DKIM signature intact. If > the sender has a p=reject DMARC policy, that can make his messages > "disappear" for recipients who check and enforce DMARC. I'm pretty sure that I'm not the first one to ask, but given that DMARC and DKIM seem to have become a thing, would it not be "better" for delivery if the mailing list software removed the DKIM signature if it modified a header that was signed? s.