[Bug Infrastructure/29713] Please make libc-alpha mailing list compatible with “git am”

["fweimer at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29713

--- Comment #39 from Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #37)
> (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #36)
> > Asserting the non-existence of these headers is what breaks DKIM signatures
> > with mailing lists. I reported this upstream-upstream here:
> > 
> >   Signed header defaults break mailing lists
> >   <https://github.com/duncanthrax/pdkim/issues/4>
> 
> Thanks. There is also a Exim and Debian bug for this:
> https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2394
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=939808
> 
> It looks like a workaround is to not rely on the default exim setting of the
> dkim sign headers, but explicitly set it to:
> 
> DKIM_SIGN_HEADERS =
> From:From:=Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Subject:Date:To:Cc:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:
> References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:
> Content-Description:=Resent-Date:=Resent-From:=Resent-Sender:=Resent-To:
> =Resent-Cc:=Resent-Message-ID:=List-Id:=List-Help:=List-Unsubscribe:=List-
> Subscribe:=List-Post:=List-Owner:=List-Archive"

“=” for the mailing list headers disables nested mailing lists (or forwarding
mail to lists with “S D r” in Gnus, “b” in mutt). It should be much more
compatible with the default.

> > If Exim (or pdkim really) are unwilling to fix this, Mailman (or something
> > in front of Mailman) needs to be taught to strip such anti-mailing-list DKIM
> > signatures.
> 
> The problem with getting this fixed seems to be that some people are
> convinced dmarc and dkim will just break mailinglists always, so they don't
> see a point in fixing the defaults.

Some of them even have the power to change the defaults. It might be tricky to
convince them to make the change that proves them wrong.

> Stripping can only be done if the dmarc policy for the domain doesn't
> require DKIM signatures, otherwise we will either have to bounce them before
> they reach the list or do From munging anyway (as suggested in comment #6).

Right, it's non-trivial logic, and not going to be implemented for Mailman 2.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.