problems with mailman version 2 and bounce messages.
My hosting company uses version 2 of mailman and over the past 2 months I am getting so many of these bounce error messages.
Action: Subscription bounce score incremented. Reason: Excessive or fatal bounces.
I am getting these regardless of whether the recipient receives list traffic or not. Earlier today I received 140 of these messages. My hosting company has suspended all email from my domain both email list and personal address twice due to these error messages being considered as spam like behaviour
Eventually I had to unsubscribe all list members to demonstrate to my hosting company my accounts were not sending spam. After a week during which time I tested every member's address using a gmail account and the bcc address field sending 99 simultaneous messages. I resubscribed all the tested addresses and set bounce processing to send me copies. Two or 3 days later 70 addresses caused bounce messages so I removed these 70 addresses many being hotmail addresses. Now tonight 140 bounce messages came through. My list has about 360 members but at this rate there won't be any if I keep having to remove addresses. This is upsetting for members especially when they configure and save settings.
I have used mailman for many years but if all email from my hosted domain is suspended again I'll have to find another email list system. Everything was fine up until about 3 months ago. A friend suggested I switch to another hosting company but he has done this and his accounts have been suspended twice for the same reason. Again this is due to mailman bounce errors being seen as your accounts being accessed to send spam. I know of other list owners which run much smaller lists than I do and they are experiencing the same bounce messages regardless of the list member receiving the list email or not.
I set bounce processing to send me copies so I can see just how bad emailman is at present.
On 8/21/26 06:59, Bernard Hemmings wrote:
My hosting company uses version 2 of mailman and over the past 2 months I am getting so many of these bounce error messages.
Action: Subscription bounce score incremented. Reason: Excessive or fatal bounces.
Those notices should have DSN attached which indicates the reason for the bounce. What are the reasons?
I'm guessing the recipient MTAs are rejecting the messages due to spam filtering at their end. Are these bounced messages legitimate list messages or is your list being spammed?
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
Bernard Hemmings writes:
My hosting company uses version 2 of mailman
Does it use our release of Mailman, or cPanel's "Mailman 2.2" fork? If the latter, the code was heavily modified by cPanel, and we have no access to their source code. We can't help you with that.
The following comments may or may not apply to cPanel Mailman 2.2. I'm assuming you're using GNU Mailman 2.1, hopefully newer than 2.1.35 (current is 2.1.39, released in December 2021).
and over the past 2 months I am getting so many of these bounce error messages.
��� Action:���� Subscription bounce score incremented. ��� Reason:���� Excessive or fatal bounces.
I am getting these regardless of whether the recipient receives list traffic or not.
Do you have DMARC mitigations enabled? If not, whether your list traffic is rejected will depend on the author (From header field) for most recipient systems (especially the professionally-run ones). Also, there is a Gmail-specific mitigation that only quite recent Mailman 2 has.
Eventually I had to unsubscribe all list members to demonstrate to my hosting company my accounts were not sending spam.� After a week during which time I tested every member's address using a gmail account
This is not an accurate test of issues with Mailman, though. This is a test of "nobody dares ban gmail, but I never heard of your host so you lose", and maybe "your host is sending a lot of mail and I don't trust you enough to keep accepting it". To test Mailman issues, you'd need to install another list manager, send list messages through that, and see if it has the same issue.
What you can do short of that: Make sure that your host
- checks for and rejects spam and other malicious incoming traffic
- provides SPF records via the DNS
- provides DKIM keys via the DNS
- correctly DKIM signs outgoing email (this can be a fight, as some DKIM systems don't like to sign email From another system, but this is helpful sometimes)
- (optional) check local-origin email for spam on the outgoing side
It may also be useful if your hosting service participates in the ARC protocol. This allows your mail server to check for spam, and then cryptographically sign a header that testifies that your server authenticated the message and it passed.
This mitigates the problem that the original sender's DKIM signature is now invalidated by changes that Mailman makes to the Subject header field and the body of the message. All the hyperscale providers like Gmail, Yahoo, and Microsoft pay some attention to ARC, but nothing is a guarantee of delivery anymore. :-(
I removed these 70 addresses many being hotmail addresses.
Hotmail is a Microsoft property, and Microsoft manages email for many other domains. It is famous for randomly deciding it doesn't like a certain email source. This happens to me personally regularly. But even Microsoft doesn't dare mess with Gmail.
Unfortunately, you can't tell your users to switch email providers. That said, you need to be aware that unless your mail server (not Mailman) is doing something Wrong, you're at the mercy of recipient systems which put much higher priority on rejecting spam than on accepting legitimate email.
I have used mailman for many years but if all email from my hosted domain is suspended again I'll have to find another email list system.
Of course it's possible it's Mailman, but Mailman's outgoing mail is as vanilla and standard-conforming as any list manager's. I don't think changing to a different mailing list manager will help you. Your hosting service (or alternative hosting services) more familiar with you and your mail flows may give you different advice, though.
That said, this looks to me like recipients don't like something about your host. Assuming that the configuration of SPF, DKIM, and (optionally) ARC are proper, and you have DMARC mitigations enabled in Mailman, what might help is changing outgoing mail to go through a relay like Sendgrid. Unfortunately I'm pretty sure your volume is going to kick you out of the free tier for Sendgrid at least (and that only lasts for 6 months, anyway). There are also problems with the bulk mailers that you may not be allowed to control certain headers that Mailman needs to set to work properly (YMMV, depending on what Mailman services such as archives your users depend on).
That said, Mailman 2 is 3-4 years out of support. Mark continues to provide patches on a time-available basis for easy fixes, but there is never going to be another Mailman 2 release from the GNU Mailman Project. It also depends on Python 2 which is out of support since April 2020, and as far as I know there are no patches available for that at all.
Our recommendation is that you (or your hosting service) migrate to Mailman 3 as soon as you reasonably can. So I encourage you to think carefully about what you want to do. If you decide to migrate to a different list manager, there's no point in migrating to Mailman 3 first.
Steve
-- GNU Mailman consultant (installation, migration, customization) Sirius Open Source https://www.siriusopensource.com/ Software systems consulting in Europe, North America, and Japan
I am running Mailman via CPANEL and I am not having these issues - are you using CPANEL ?
When I lookup livingaudio.net <http://livingaudio.net/> it shows that there is no DMARC record for that domain ? Most of the email servers in the world now require DMARC records or they will reject your emails.
JerryB
On Aug 21, 2026, at 8:59 AM, Bernard Hemmings <bhemmings@livingaudio.net> wrote:
My hosting company uses version 2 of mailman and over the past 2 months I am getting so many of these bounce error messages. Action: Subscription bounce score incremented. Reason: Excessive or fatal bounces.I am getting these regardless of whether the recipient receives list traffic or not. Earlier today I received 140 of these messages. My hosting company has suspended all email from my domain both email list and personal address twice due to these error messages being considered as spam like behaviour
Eventually I had to unsubscribe all list members to demonstrate to my hosting company my accounts were not sending spam. After a week during which time I tested every member's address using a gmail account and the bcc address field sending 99 simultaneous messages. I resubscribed all the tested addresses and set bounce processing to send me copies. Two or 3 days later 70 addresses caused bounce messages so I removed these 70 addresses many being hotmail addresses. Now tonight 140 bounce messages came through. My list has about 360 members but at this rate there won't be any if I keep having to remove addresses. This is upsetting for members especially when they configure and save settings.
I have used mailman for many years but if all email from my hosted domain is suspended again I'll have to find another email list system. Everything was fine up until about 3 months ago. A friend suggested I switch to another hosting company but he has done this and his accounts have been suspended twice for the same reason. Again this is due to mailman bounce errors being seen as your accounts being accessed to send spam. I know of other list owners which run much smaller lists than I do and they are experiencing the same bounce messages regardless of the list member receiving the list email or not.
I set bounce processing to send me copies so I can see just how bad emailman is at present.
Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/ Member address: jerry.barnabee@gmail.com
Jerry Barnabee via Mailman-Users writes:
I am running Mailman via CPANEL and I am not having these issues - are you using CPANEL ?
It's almost never the software. It's almost always the sending domain's reputation and the recipient's spam paranoia.
When I lookup livingaudio.net <http://livingaudio.net/> it shows that there is no DMARC record for that domain ? Most of the email servers in the world now require DMARC records or they will reject your emails.
Maybe this is new, but: % host -t txt _dmarc.livingaudio.net _dmarc.livingaudio.net descriptive text "v=DMARC1;p=quarantine;rua=mailto:bhemmings@livingaudio.net;ruf=mailto:bhemmings@livingaudio.net;"
That's something I hadn't thought of: Bernard's record says to "quarantine" the email. I don't think that should generate a rejection, which would be some protection from DMARC bounces.
Note that DMARC is a demand by *senders* that receivers reject email apparently from them in certain circumstances. If there is a non-null DMARC policy, most recipients will respect it. But (outside of the authoritarian crank faction of the IETF's email working group) I've never heard a suggestion that *recipients* should demand a DMARC record of senders. I really doubt that Microsoft is that kind of authoritarian crank, though -- their clients would notice loss of *lots* of mail.
What Bernard needs is a DKIM record, and here it is: % host -t txt default._domainkey.livingaudio.net default._domainkey.livingaudio.net descriptive text "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAxigpYyliFG2MbtvHRQF8pZabvm0PwIZSi1qbFbCGMQXBRC1NxfQeVEQkAptcn6kEZ115XDxONQj3mVooy8XJPOz9/s8uFS2prb8BstAwYRibjMvkPFPU1NYbnnKP90Zx1yo3ZeJ7ztDhKSXuR3y9l+iLgyFMr6mLsXTw3uZMrLQQ2KYMaQ/1LssiBswGcZHbK" "pebH6LW+vVVd8RNtCh+1mn63Zxg1XVzdWr+txyH+uzFQhisPD3XXIAjYQxaz25Rn0N9j31Lj7b6H9PaKUexHdIJa7WFtMMDwqJQ9ko8KfpAXF8BL/wEkJXrURDnaJZvpL/j6S/LFJRiqjlAALW6WQIDAQAB;"
That's hard to look up without looking into message headers because the pseudo-domain contains a "selector". That can change arbitrarily often, and there's no standard way to indicate the naming pattern or schedule, so you need the s= parameter from a DKIM signature. (In theory a DNS zone transfer would give it to you, but those require authorization from the domain owner these days.)
Steve
-- GNU Mailman consultant (installation, migration, customization) Sirius Open Source https://www.siriusopensource.com/ Software systems consulting in Europe, North America, and Japan
On Aug 23, 2026, at 9:01 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull <steve@turnbull.jp> wrote:
Note that DMARC is a demand by *senders* that receivers reject email apparently from them in certain circumstances. If there is a non-null DMARC policy, most recipients will respect it. But (outside of the authoritarian crank faction of the IETF's email working group) I've never heard a suggestion that *recipients* should demand a DMARC record of senders. I really doubt that Microsoft is that kind of authoritarian crank, though -- their clients would notice loss of *lots* of mail. Steve
--
The issue isn’t that the mail providers think that DMARC demands they check even if not asked, but that they have made the decision that mail without SPF/DKIM verification is too likely spam, and that users are naive enough that alignment to just envelope sender is too likely to be phishing, thus mail that would fail a DMARC check isn’t considered safe.
The sender doesn’t need an actual DMARC policy, just send it in a way that would pass the basic checks.
Richard Damon writes:
The sender doesn’t need an actual DMARC policy, just send it in a way that would pass the basic checks.
Which was what I said, no? Except that I listed out the requirements to pass the basic checks.
I'm not sure what your point is. We know that sites, including big sites, are giving spam points to messages that pass neither SPF nor DKIM, and some (Gmail) even require From alignment for sites that have a p=none policy (Gmail, itself). We don't need to know why, we just need to tell Mailman admins how to configure their MTAs. And in the case of Gmail's stealth from alignment requirement, Mailman itself added a mitigation to recent releases.
Steve
-- GNU Mailman consultant (installation, migration, customization) Sirius Open Source https://www.siriusopensource.com/ Software systems consulting in Europe, North America, and Japan
Hi Steve,
Thoughtful but:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2026, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Note that DMARC is a demand by *senders* that receivers reject email apparently from them in certain circumstances. If there is a non-null DMARC policy, most recipients will respect it. But (outside of the authoritarian crank faction of the IETF's email working group) I've never heard a suggestion that *recipients* should demand a DMARC record of senders.
WOW, in what decade have YOU been sending emails on a list? Not recently!
My memory for such things isn't great, it all blends together, but it must be nearly 10 years since ALL my e-lists got rejected, my servers got a rep as spam hosts and it was a ROYAL pain the ... to figure out Just WTF was wrong. For some recipients it wasn't ONLY DMARC but also SPF. And you can bet your bottom dollar they DEMAND you meet their requirements or -pfft!- Go Away!
Microsoft? They do it too, and long have done.
Ironically, I've busted Google for having broken SPF - which identifies which mail servers may send mail for your domain - at least that's what I THINK they had that was broken ... when my outbound email would be randomly rejected because one of THEIR recipient machines was mis-configured, forwarding my systems emails as if it was from their server, When it got to other deeper-in servers they rejected it and because the SPF didn't match and my systems emails were getting rejected.
This is a part of crapitalism where there's nobody to talk to, no e-address to properly complain to, and frankly, an AI bot would be preferable to ZERO opportunity to tell these crapitalists about their mis-configured systems! .. I had THEIR IP addresses, the whole 9 yards! I could prove it but there was - and still is - no one to talk / complain to.
So ... park your incredulity, this is the modern era for those of us who aren't the Big Boys and have to fend for our own systems out there in the less-friendly-than-it-was modern Internet.
FWIW, _my_ very first time using the internet was in 1978... So, been there, done that, got the stinky tee-shirt. ... As a small player you've just got to be in react mode now matter how painful it may be since in our modern crapitalistic system, you have zero power, you must conform, DMARC, SPF, or whatever else they come up with. Or, you're ignored.
Good luck, Richard
-- Richard Troy, Chief Scientist Science Tools Corporation 510-717-6942 rtroy@ScienceTools.com, http://ScienceTools.com/
I pledge allegiance to We, The People, to mutual peace and harmony, and to the natural Earth and biosphere upon which We, The People, depend.
Oops!
Forgot to mention" DKIM
The trifecta you must adhere to are DMARC, DKIM, and SPF.
I regret the omission!
Richard
On Sun, 23 Aug 2026, richard@karmannghia.org wrote:
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2026 21:55:30 -0700 (PDT) From: richard@karmannghia.org To: Stephen J. Turnbull <steve@turnbull.jp> Cc: Bernard Hemmings <bhemmings@livingaudio.net>, mailman-users@python.org Subject: [Mailman-Users] Re: problems with mailman version 2 and bounce messages.
Hi Steve,
Thoughtful but:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2026, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Note that DMARC is a demand by *senders* that receivers reject email apparently from them in certain circumstances. If there is a non-null DMARC policy, most recipients will respect it. But (outside of the authoritarian crank faction of the IETF's email working group) I've never heard a suggestion that *recipients* should demand a DMARC record of senders.
WOW, in what decade have YOU been sending emails on a list? Not recently!
My memory for such things isn't great, it all blends together, but it must be nearly 10 years since ALL my e-lists got rejected, my servers got a rep as spam hosts and it was a ROYAL pain the ... to figure out Just WTF was wrong. For some recipients it wasn't ONLY DMARC but also SPF. And you can bet your bottom dollar they DEMAND you meet their requirements or -pfft!- Go Away!
Microsoft? They do it too, and long have done.
Ironically, I've busted Google for having broken SPF - which identifies which mail servers may send mail for your domain - at least that's what I THINK they had that was broken ... when my outbound email would be randomly rejected because one of THEIR recipient machines was mis-configured, forwarding my systems emails as if it was from their server, When it got to other deeper-in servers they rejected it and because the SPF didn't match and my systems emails were getting rejected.
This is a part of crapitalism where there's nobody to talk to, no e-address to properly complain to, and frankly, an AI bot would be preferable to ZERO opportunity to tell these crapitalists about their mis-configured systems! .. I had THEIR IP addresses, the whole 9 yards! I could prove it but there was - and still is - no one to talk / complain to.
So ... park your incredulity, this is the modern era for those of us who aren't the Big Boys and have to fend for our own systems out there in the less-friendly-than-it-was modern Internet.
FWIW, _my_ very first time using the internet was in 1978... So, been there, done that, got the stinky tee-shirt. ... As a small player you've just got to be in react mode now matter how painful it may be since in our modern crapitalistic system, you have zero power, you must conform, DMARC, SPF, or whatever else they come up with. Or, you're ignored.
Good luck, Richard
-- Richard Troy, Chief Scientist Science Tools Corporation 510-717-6942 rtroy@ScienceTools.com, http://ScienceTools.com/
I pledge allegiance to We, The People, to mutual peace and harmony, and to the natural Earth and biosphere upon which We, The People, depend.
Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/ Member address: richard@karmannghia.org
richard@karmannghia.org writes:
Forgot to mention" DKIM
The trifecta you must adhere to are DMARC, DKIM, and SPF.
Putting them together as if they're the same is inaccurate. You must provide DNS records to support DKIM and SPF for your host, and DKIM-sign outgoing email. DKIM signing applies to all outgoing mail, so should be done in the MTA. So far so good.
But the treatment of DMARC is different in kind. It has nothing to do with your site conforming to the DMARC protocol or providing DMARC DNS records. Rather, it is self-defense against side effects of others' conformance. Furthermore, DMARC mitigation is, and should be, provided by Mailman. The MTA doesn't know enough about when to do it.
Steve
-- GNU Mailman consultant (installation, migration, customization) Sirius Open Source https://www.siriusopensource.com/ Software systems consulting in Europe, North America, and Japan
On 8/23/26 21:55, richard@karmannghia.org wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2026, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Note that DMARC is a demand by *senders* that receivers reject email apparently from them in certain circumstances. If there is a non-null DMARC policy, most recipients will respect it. But (outside of the authoritarian crank faction of the IETF's email working group) I've never heard a suggestion that *recipients* should demand a DMARC record of senders.
WOW, in what decade have YOU been sending emails on a list? Not recently!
Steve was responding to the assertion in the post at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/message/UYBJR... that "Most of the email servers in the world now require DMARC records or they will reject your emails."
I.e. the assertion is that even if my mail passes DKIM and SPF with a domain aligned with the From: domain (i.e. passes DMARC with flying colors), it will be rejected if my domain does not publish a DMARC policy. Are there really major recipient domains that will reject my mail solely because my domain doesn't publish a DMARC policy.
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
On Sun, Aug 23, 2026 at 10:53:47PM -0700, Mark Sapiro wrote:
On 8/23/26 21:55, richard@karmannghia.org wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2026, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Note that DMARC is a demand by *senders* that receivers reject email apparently from them in certain circumstances. If there is a non-null DMARC policy, most recipients will respect it. But (outside of the authoritarian crank faction of the IETF's email working group) I've never heard a suggestion that *recipients* should demand a DMARC record of senders.
WOW, in what decade have YOU been sending emails on a list? Not recently!
Steve was responding to the assertion in the post at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/message/UYBJR... that "Most of the email servers in the world now require DMARC records or they will reject your emails."
I.e. the assertion is that even if my mail passes DKIM and SPF with a domain aligned with the From: domain (i.e. passes DMARC with flying colors), it will be rejected if my domain does not publish a DMARC policy. Are there really major recipient domains that will reject my mail solely because my domain doesn't publish a DMARC policy.
If you send over 5,000 emails a day to Google or Microsoft hosted recipients, you *must* use DMARC apparently (amongst requirements).
https://support.google.com/mail/answer/81126?sjid=3367894452285755714-EU
https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/microsoftdefenderforoffice365blog/s...
Jon Ribbens via Mailman-Users writes:
If you send over 5,000 emails a day to Google or Microsoft hosted recipients, you *must* use DMARC apparently (amongst requirements).
OK, I stand corrected.
Weirdly enough, Google requires that you have a DMARC DNS record, not that you actually use it for anything ("p=none" is allowed, and requesting reports is "recommended"). I'm not going to bother checking M$FT, it's probably the same.
Note that this requirement does not make much sense for mailing lists (although I've long suspected Google of wanting to kill mailing lists, despite the love that Summer of Code consistently gives us!). The thing is, it's not possible for a typical mailing list to actually authenticate via DMARC. Unless it Munges All The Things, which most of us think undesirable. Or it's a pure mail exploder, in which case the original sender, not the mailing list, gets authenticated by a conforming DMARC verifier and the list's DMARC record is completely irrelevant.
Also, "send" is ambiguous here. A mailing list is an intermediary. It does re-inject the message into the Internet mail system, and in that sense "sends" email to Gmail. But normally in email usage "sender" refers to the originating process, and that's what DMARC authenticates.
I think that all intelligent life has fled Google or at least Gmail.
Regards, Steve
P.S. For the greybeards among us
Dear Abby, Dear Abby, Now here is the gist: I just want to run One small mailing list
But Mountain View and Bellevue Won't let my mail through Won't someone please tell me WTF can I do?
Signed, /dev/null Ed
RIP John, you were a real one
-- GNU Mailman consultant (installation, migration, customization) Sirius Open Source https://www.siriusopensource.com/ Software systems consulting in Europe, North America, and Japan
On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 4:00 PM Stephen J. Turnbull <steve@turnbull.jp> wrote:
Jon Ribbens via Mailman-Users writes:
If you send over 5,000 emails a day to Google or Microsoft hosted recipients, you *must* use DMARC apparently (amongst requirements).
[ SNIP!]
P.S. For the greybeards among us
Dear Abby, Dear Abby, Now here is the gist: I just want to run One small mailing list
But Mountain View and Bellevue Won't let my mail through Won't someone please tell me WTF can I do?
Signed, /dev/null Ed
RIP John, you were a real one
RMFAOTF ... :-)
-- Best regards, Odhiambo WASHINGTON, Nairobi,KE +254 7 3200 0004/+254 7 2274 3223 In an Internet failure case, the #1 suspect is a constant: DNS. "Oh, the cruft.", egrep -v '^$|^.*#' ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ :-) [How to ask smart questions: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]
Richard writes:
WOW, in what decade have YOU been sending emails on a list? Not recently!
I'm not sure what you're going on about. Of course mailing lists face a more hostile environment nowadays; welcome to our Internet with FAANGs. You're not the only one who's been around the block more than once.
My memory for such things isn't great, it all blends together, but it must be nearly 10 years since ALL my e-lists got rejected,
Sorry about your pain. That was probably the "Great Yahoo/AOL DMARC Debacle" of April 2014. Really bad things happened to people and businesses then -- invoices were lost and business models crippled. And I personally spent a mostly sleepless week helping put out a release of Mailman 2 with DMARC mitigations.
So ... park your incredulity,
I wasn't "incredulous". I was correcting "alternative facts" and providing advice. There is simply nothing in the DMARC protocol, and no evidence that anybody is making up a local requirement, that suggests that having a DMARC DNS record for your Mailman host will help your traffic pass filters for malicious mail. And the rest was the advice that works. That is:
conform, DMARC, SPF, or whatever else they come up with. Or, you're ignored.
Seems quite reasonable to me, although obviously I'm very sad about the negative impact of DMARC on mailing lists. We're using *their* resources (storage, network bandwidth, a bit of CPU) for free, and *they* let us because it makes *their* users happy. But then spammers use our names to use those resources for free, with intent to annoy and defraud *their* users and maybe ours too. We all have a right to self-defense.
Steve
-- GNU Mailman consultant (installation, migration, customization) Sirius Open Source https://www.siriusopensource.com/ Software systems consulting in Europe, North America, and Japan
participants (8)
-
Bernard Hemmings -
Jerry Barnabee -
Jon Ribbens -
Mark Sapiro -
Richard Damon -
richard＠karmannghia.org -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
Washington Odhiambo