Mailing List Bounce Issues
Hello,
I am the mailing list administrator for a charity cycling team. The list currently has about 150 members. The list and our website is hosted by a local ISP who is running Mailman 2.1.34.
We seem to be having all too frequent occurrences of multiple bounces that seem to be related only to the domain of the address recipient. Previously we have had issues with AOL.com and Mindspring.com email domains. The main result of these are disabled subscriptions due to excessive bounces.
The latest in this continuing saga occurred on Monday morning when I received notification that 12! list members with Yahoo.com email domain addresses had been unsubscribed from the list! I am assuming that this is the sum total of ALL yahoo addresses in our list.
The interesting thing about this occurrence other than losing the name associated with the email address (since the members were unsubscribed not just disabled) is that I NEVER received ANY bounce notifications other than the unsubscribe notification. I find this quite odd and unsettling considering that the list shows that it IS configured to send earlier bounce notifications and I have received them in the past... just not leading up to this latest incident. The typical error message is:
jonxx_dajxxn@yahoo.com <jones_dajuan@yahoo.com> has been removed from MSing-ride. (disabled address)
So I guess that my question is whether or not these types of problems are now endemic to all email lists or if....Our ISP is technically "challenged" and
- Doesn't know how to properly configure Mailman to send out the requested notifications.
- Continues to get blacklisted for sending SPAM even though they don't.
Thanks for any insight.
Steve
Have you seen this?
https://wiki.list.org/DEV/DMARC
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 9:05 AM steve lund <slund348@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
I am the mailing list administrator for a charity cycling team. The list currently has about 150 members. The list and our website is hosted by a local ISP who is running Mailman 2.1.34.
We seem to be having all too frequent occurrences of multiple bounces that seem to be related only to the domain of the address recipient. Previously we have had issues with AOL.com and Mindspring.com email domains. The main result of these are disabled subscriptions due to excessive bounces.
The latest in this continuing saga occurred on Monday morning when I received notification that 12! list members with Yahoo.com email domain addresses had been unsubscribed from the list! I am assuming that this is the sum total of ALL yahoo addresses in our list.
The interesting thing about this occurrence other than losing the name associated with the email address (since the members were unsubscribed not just disabled) is that I NEVER received ANY bounce notifications other than the unsubscribe notification. I find this quite odd and unsettling considering that the list shows that it IS configured to send earlier bounce notifications and I have received them in the past... just not leading up to this latest incident. The typical error message is:
jonxx_dajxxn@yahoo.com <jones_dajuan@yahoo.com> has been removed from MSing-ride. (disabled address)
So I guess that my question is whether or not these types of problems are now endemic to all email lists or if....Our ISP is technically "challenged" and
- Doesn't know how to properly configure Mailman to send out the requested notifications.
- Continues to get blacklisted for sending SPAM even though they don't.
Thanks for any insight.
Steve
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/
--
Russell Clemings <russell@clemings.com>
On 1/26/21 5:57 PM, steve lund wrote:
We seem to be having all too frequent occurrences of multiple bounces that seem to be related only to the domain of the address recipient.
As pointed out in another reply, this is likely a DMARC issue and MM 2.1.34 has settings to mitigate this.
The interesting thing about this occurrence other than losing the name associated with the email address (since the members were unsubscribed not just disabled) is that I NEVER received ANY bounce notifications other than the unsubscribe notification. I find this quite odd and unsettling considering that the list shows that it IS configured to send earlier bounce notifications and I have received them in the past... just not leading up to this latest incident. The typical error message is:
jonxx_dajxxn@yahoo.com <jones_dajuan@yahoo.com> has been removed from MSing-ride. (disabled address)
That occurred after the users delivery was disabled by bounce and the notices to the user were exhausted. When the delivery was first disabled, (three weeks earlier with default bounce settings) there was a notice sent to the list admins about the disable if the list's admin Bounce processing -> bounce_notify_owner_on_disable setting is Yes.
Also, you can set Bounce processing -> bounce_notify_owner_on_bounce_increment to Yes to be sent a notice when a bounce is received that increments the score.
If one or both of these settings is Yes and you aren't receiving the notices, that's between Mailman's MTA and you.
So I guess that my question is whether or not these types of problems are now endemic to all email lists or if....Our ISP is technically "challenged" and
- Doesn't know how to properly configure Mailman to send out the requested notifications.
Since you got the unsub notice, I'd expect that all requested notices have been sent.
- Continues to get blacklisted for sending SPAM even though they don't.
What are your settings under Privacy options... -> Sender filters for dmarc_moderation_action and dmarc_quarantine_moderation_action? at a minimum, they should be Munge From and Yes respectively.
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
Mark,
...And everyone else who replied, yes, this does indeed look like a DMARC issue. I looked at the help pages and it looks like some things can be changed but from what I gather any changes would likely affect functionality for the users.
I am a member of a different list that munged the FROM header to the list address with the down side that ALL replies had to go back through the list even if it was specific to one individual. Not a great experience just to pick up a few members who had AOL email domains.
I'll forward the help pages to our ISP list admin to see if he has any thoughts on changes that might help but not restrict functionality.
Thanks, Steve
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 2:12 PM Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> wrote:
On 1/26/21 5:57 PM, steve lund wrote:
We seem to be having all too frequent occurrences of multiple bounces
that
seem to be related only to the domain of the address recipient.
As pointed out in another reply, this is likely a DMARC issue and MM 2.1.34 has settings to mitigate this.
The interesting thing about this occurrence other than losing the name associated with the email address (since the members were unsubscribed not just disabled) is that I NEVER received ANY bounce notifications other than the unsubscribe notification. I find this quite odd and unsettling considering that the list shows that it IS configured to send earlier bounce notifications and I have received them in the past... just not leading up to this latest incident. The typical error message is:
jonxx_dajxxn@yahoo.com <jones_dajuan@yahoo.com> has been removed from MSing-ride. (disabled address)
That occurred after the users delivery was disabled by bounce and the notices to the user were exhausted. When the delivery was first disabled, (three weeks earlier with default bounce settings) there was a notice sent to the list admins about the disable if the list's admin Bounce processing -> bounce_notify_owner_on_disable setting is Yes.
Also, you can set Bounce processing -> bounce_notify_owner_on_bounce_increment to Yes to be sent a notice when a bounce is received that increments the score.
If one or both of these settings is Yes and you aren't receiving the notices, that's between Mailman's MTA and you.
So I guess that my question is whether or not these types of problems are now endemic to all email lists or if....Our ISP is technically "challenged" and
- Doesn't know how to properly configure Mailman to send out the requested notifications.
Since you got the unsub notice, I'd expect that all requested notices have been sent.
- Continues to get blacklisted for sending SPAM even though they don't.
What are your settings under Privacy options... -> Sender filters for dmarc_moderation_action and dmarc_quarantine_moderation_action? at a minimum, they should be Munge From and Yes respectively.
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
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/
On 1/29/21 5:38 AM, steve lund wrote:
...And everyone else who replied, yes, this does indeed look like a DMARC issue. I looked at the help pages and it looks like some things can be changed but from what I gather any changes would likely affect functionality for the users.
I am a member of a different list that munged the FROM header to the list address with the down side that ALL replies had to go back through the list even if it was specific to one individual. Not a great experience just to pick up a few members who had AOL email domains.
Is this a Mailman list? Both Mailman 2.1 and Mailman 3 take pains to create Munged From messages which exhibit the same behavior for 'reply' and 'reply-all' as non-munged messages. Here's what we say:
# MAS: We need to do some things with the original From: if we've munged # it for DMARC mitigation. We have goals for this process which are # not completely compatible, so we do the best we can. Our goals are: # 1) as long as the list is not anonymous, the original From: address # should be obviously exposed, i.e. not just in a header that MUAs # don't display. # 2) the original From: address should not be in a comment or display # name in the new From: because it is claimed that multiple domains # in any fields in From: are indicative of spamminess. This means # it should be in Reply-To: or Cc:. # 3) the behavior of an MUA doing a 'reply' or 'reply all' should be # consistent regardless of whether or not the From: is munged. # Goal 3) implies sometimes the original From: should be in Reply-To: # and sometimes in Cc:, and even so, this goal won't be achieved in # all cases with all MUAs. In cases of conflict, the above ordering of # goals is priority order.
I.e. preserving 'reply' and 'reply all' behavior is goal 3, but note that "this goal won't be achieved in all cases with all MUAs".
I.e. some MUAs that don't follow RFC recommendations for replying may not reply appropriately. This is an MUA issue. Mailman is doing the best it can.
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
Mark,
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 10:36 AM Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> wrote:
On 1/29/21 5:38 AM, steve lund wrote:
...And everyone else who replied, yes, this does indeed look like a DMARC issue. I looked at the help pages and it looks like some things can be changed but from what I gather any changes would likely affect functionality for the users.
I am a member of a different list that munged the FROM header to the list address with the down side that ALL replies had to go back through the
list
even if it was specific to one individual. Not a great experience just to pick up a few members who had AOL email domains.
Is this a Mailman list? Both Mailman 2.1 and Mailman 3 take pains to create Munged From messages which exhibit the same behavior for 'reply' and 'reply-all' as non-munged messages. Here's what we say:
I don't know if it was a Mailman list or not. This was 2-3 years ago. I looked at a current list message and there is no indication of the list sender. Is there any way that I can send a query to get this information?
# MAS: We need to do some things with the original From: if we'vemunged
# it for DMARC mitigation. We have goals for this process which are # not completely compatible, so we do the best we can. Our goalsare:
# 1) as long as the list is not anonymous, the original From: address # should be obviously exposed, i.e. not just in a header that MUAs # don't display. # 2) the original From: address should not be in a comment or display # name in the new From: because it is claimed that multipledomains
# in any fields in From: are indicative of spamminess. This means # it should be in Reply-To: or Cc:. # 3) the behavior of an MUA doing a 'reply' or 'reply all' should be # consistent regardless of whether or not the From: is munged. # Goal 3) implies sometimes the original From: should be in Reply-To: # and sometimes in Cc:, and even so, this goal won't be achieved in # all cases with all MUAs. In cases of conflict, the above orderingof
# goals is priority order.I.e. preserving 'reply' and 'reply all' behavior is goal 3, but note that "this goal won't be achieved in all cases with all MUAs".
I.e. some MUAs that don't follow RFC recommendations for replying may not reply appropriately. This is an MUA issue. Mailman is doing the best it can.
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
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/
On 1/30/21 2:22 PM, steve lund wrote:
I don't know if it was a Mailman list or not. This was 2-3 years ago. I looked at a current list message and there is no indication of the list sender. Is there any way that I can send a query to get this information?
What information are you trying to get?
In order to get a definitive answer, you need to set the list's dmarc_moderation_action to Munge From and see what you get because it depends on both what's in the incoming post and on list settings.
Here's an example:
Incoming message has From: The User <user@example.com> no Reply-To: List has reply_goes_to_list = Poster
Outgoing message will have From: The User via List_name <list_address@example.com> Reply-To: The User <user@example.com>
For conformant MUAs, Reply-To trumps From and a reply will go to The User <user@example.com>.
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
On 30 Jan 2021, at 5:22 PM, steve lund <slund348@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark,
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 10:36 AM Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> wrote:
On 1/29/21 5:38 AM, steve lund wrote:
...And everyone else who replied, yes, this does indeed look like a DMARC issue. I looked at the help pages and it looks like some things can be changed but from what I gather any changes would likely affect functionality for the users.
I am a member of a different list that munged the FROM header to the list address with the down side that ALL replies had to go back through the
list
even if it was specific to one individual. Not a great experience just to pick up a few members who had AOL email domains.
Is this a Mailman list? Both Mailman 2.1 and Mailman 3 take pains to create Munged From messages which exhibit the same behavior for 'reply' and 'reply-all' as non-munged messages. Here's what we say:
I don't know if it was a Mailman list or not. This was 2-3 years ago. I looked at a current list message and there is no indication of the list sender. Is there any way that I can send a query to get this information?
Look at the message headers - if it’s a mailman list, you should find
X-Mailman-Version: xx.yy.zz
— Tom Coradeschi tjcora@icloud.com
Tom,
Good point. It has been a LONG time since I wandered into attempting to read email headers. Here is a sample header from the list that recently had the domain related bounce issue Let me know if you see anything that is mis-configured. BTW, the ISP is going to switch to the current Mailman version 3 fairly soon. I don't know if this is going to help the situation or not.
================================================================================================================ Delivered-To: slund348@gmail.com Received: by 2002:a54:3e8d:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id a13csp437307ecq; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 14:00:31 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzGX0l1jB2LKv4yfEwbTh6FFEfBqAZH+gPwf8d70fYYf9yO2CYfAzrNdDHIr9sWEvUGiZ/y X-Received: by 2002:a25:ac5a:: with SMTP id r26mr3257896ybd.336.1610748030970; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 14:00:30 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: <msing-ride-bounces@lists.msinglinks.org> Received: from duke.deltaforce.net (duke.deltaforce.net. [2600:3c02::f03c:91ff:fe71:4634]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id v201si10664463ybe.88.2021.01.15.14.00.30; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 14:00:30 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of msing-ride-bounces@lists.msinglinks.org designates 2600:3c02::f03c:91ff:fe71:4634 as permitted sender) client-ip=2600:3c02::f03c:91ff:fe71:4634; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@msinglinks.org header.s=201912 header.b=bz9GJB1w; arc=fail (body hash mismatch); spf=pass (google.com: domain of msing-ride-bounces@lists.msinglinks.org designates 2600:3c02::f03c:91ff:fe71:4634 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom= msing-ride-bounces@lists.msinglinks.org; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from= lists.msinglinks.org Received: from duke.deltaforce.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by duke.deltaforce.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FF7C200C8; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 17:00:01 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=msinglinks.org; s=201912; t=1610748001; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post; bh=ORdvQKi3OGyn08xnXH+vGvjhYXIfAwAjoa5QXyL8H5s=; b=bz9GJB1wEvlLHiI0bLrum1IHXRIND3T2g4MeZTgJtD3HbXfndhr6twd1MRk+H8hDuP4MPs cq5ACo1Fs/+5DBOcx/3piPI1u+wL+PdpJfoBXpWCzSa+wQ2pyEq5oKvjA6KwBW6y4GHTcP hTWUEwqtx3QKwMQZVOQImagCizVcT2c= X-Original-To: MSing-ride@lists.msinglinks.org Delivered-To: msing-ride@duke.deltaforce.net Received: from mail-ed1-x536.google.com (mail-ed1-x536.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::536]) by duke.deltaforce.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F123B2008B for <MSing-ride@lists.msinglinks.org>; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 16:59:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ed1-x536.google.com with SMTP id r5so11141282eda.12 for < MSing-ride@lists.msinglinks.org>; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 13:59:58 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=hUMg9j8t3zLn90bOZgjF1+yZ+P6ZmnsiCMjsoVW4BLY=; b=I/y7UITY1M2yop5zIvY8DgSvwCsQZSmYxAfbV41YGfHBG/e5ijjlCaofgOXFmahlaa RxFPJMFFbi/pmtuZwToxAF9cWwjH7kfxcslMHs6mh1meopCvnVXh+xHPFjl96aow1vo7 BludusxmM3RndqSVTImePOWzHTv22UIQ/Y9clTULaF3pWbxJfSJ4spBXfheZtcBrLItD 1nGqVJIZ21EJgt1CmDVal4tdzoOcXHijZFDBtbebIuG034OyXILCRf+Bla73sIHMRynx 3vXnC72hWl6fXGYtOZE43xhN9eOF/tYA2yUrxCTwt/7juJDVNCnIZRsGODFrZU8sc8iF UxVA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533p+34DdDQ6FEq8DYXx1JUTJiL+/BYroqOgWaXkrl1pPbZxOlmz QYPsE0T0jTzEjzw0rXizMEb7Xw2FaAnyH+xubWVWsMzms6c= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:ca2:: with SMTP id cn2mr11237658edb.137.1610747997902; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 13:59:57 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 16:59:47 -0500 Message-ID: <CAKPKP=dXW6XJ3_Nu2= dry+smTZWjd1+Mu1M7cSGgcVh6H4sZdg@mail.gmail.com> To: MSing Links Ride List <MSing-ride@lists.msinglinks.org> ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= msinglinks.org; s=201912; t=1610747999; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: dkim-signature; bh=hUMg9j8t3zLn90bOZgjF1+yZ+P6ZmnsiCMjsoVW4BLY=; b=eYUz7XqRPBl8imwhZzXmE0nj37PkcVPwt+owOmeHUg3Dd1RWvqwt5L9h9UcR6P7JxQHiiM MXXN8mKzEUaWob3KuLs0yTqiFQqyzjyjs1Pihs49LyZhANm9C2Hm1zzJgEsbzYEhb3rqvS cGemsva5TWzBYkVQeUipYXhTBdvPlGI= ARC-Seal: i=1; s=201912; d=msinglinks.org; t=1610747999; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=tU04RuUB4ViYt0S6yasddLeRwK6dUJZSo9mN1e5CLnVqxGJC+Qnm+xXTB3Irkhn+ijqcKr lPg3zHE+gwT9vO4OOiosJtKiWUgG9fQwQBvdblZa8GqSFldtA2xtqliqdcCp0IMAIAwHQQ utsAYGMN7fjAtoNxvN0sSHxeTKGA93A= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; duke.deltaforce.net; dkim=pass header.d= gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=hRBk2AdT; spf=pass (duke.deltaforce.net: domain of donaldrbelk@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4864:20::536 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=donaldrbelk@gmail.com X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.40 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.34 Subject: [MSing_Links-Ride] test X-BeenThere: msing-ride@lists.msinglinks.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: MSing Links Ride Announce / Chat List < msing-ride.lists.msinglinks.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.msinglinks.org/mailman/options/msing-ride>, <mailto:msing-ride-request@lists.msinglinks.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <https://lists.msinglinks.org/mailman/private/msing-ride/> List-Post: <mailto:msing-ride@lists.msinglinks.org> List-Help: <mailto:msing-ride-request@lists.msinglinks.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.msinglinks.org/mailman/listinfo/msing-ride>, <mailto:msing-ride-request@lists.msinglinks.org?subject=subscribe> From: Donald Belk via MSing-ride <msing-ride@lists.msinglinks.org> Reply-To: Donald Belk <donaldrbelk@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: msing-ride-bounces@lists.msinglinks.org Sender: MSing-ride <msing-ride-bounces@lists.msinglinks.org>
On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 12:46 PM Thomas Coradeschi via Mailman-Users < mailman-users@python.org> wrote:
On 30 Jan 2021, at 5:22 PM, steve lund <slund348@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark,
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 10:36 AM Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> wrote:
On 1/29/21 5:38 AM, steve lund wrote:
...And everyone else who replied, yes, this does indeed look like a
issue. I looked at the help pages and it looks like some things can be changed but from what I gather any changes would likely affect functionality for the users.
I am a member of a different list that munged the FROM header to the
address with the down side that ALL replies had to go back through the
DMARC list list
even if it was specific to one individual. Not a great experience just to pick up a few members who had AOL email domains.
Is this a Mailman list? Both Mailman 2.1 and Mailman 3 take pains to create Munged From messages which exhibit the same behavior for 'reply' and 'reply-all' as non-munged messages. Here's what we say:
I don't know if it was a Mailman list or not. This was 2-3 years ago. I looked at a current list message and there is no indication of the list sender. Is there any way that I can send a query to get this information?
Look at the message headers - if it’s a mailman list, you should find
X-Mailman-Version: xx.yy.zz
— Tom Coradeschi tjcora@icloud.com
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/
On 1/31/21 6:42 PM, steve lund wrote:
Tom,
Good point. It has been a LONG time since I wandered into attempting to read email headers. Here is a sample header from the list that recently had the domain related bounce issue Let me know if you see anything that is mis-configured. BTW, the ISP is going to switch to the current Mailman version 3 fairly soon. I don't know if this is going to help the situation or not.
Probably not.
================================================================================================================
Delivered-To: slund348@gmail.com
This message was to you
Return-Path: <msing-ride-bounces@lists.msinglinks.org>
from the list
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of msing-ride-bounces@lists.msinglinks.org designates 2600:3c02::f03c:91ff:fe71:4634 as permitted sender) client-ip=2600:3c02::f03c:91ff:fe71:4634; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@msinglinks.org header.s=201912 header.b=bz9GJB1w; arc=fail (body hash mismatch); spf=pass (google.com: domain of msing-ride-bounces@lists.msinglinks.org designates 2600:3c02::f03c:91ff:fe71:4634 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom= msing-ride-bounces@lists.msinglinks.org; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from= lists.msinglinks.org
And gmail says it passes spf, dkim and DMARC.
To: MSing Links Ride List <MSing-ride@lists.msinglinks.org>
and was sent to the list
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.34
and was content filtered by Mailman.
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Mailman version is 2.1.34 (the latest 2.1 version)
From: Donald Belk via MSing-ride <msing-ride@lists.msinglinks.org> Reply-To: Donald Belk <donaldrbelk@gmail.com>
And the From: is munged by the list and the original From: added to Repty-To:
So this list is Munging From: headers, and if that was the case when the bounces occurred (maybe 3 weeks before the unsubscribes), the bounces probably weren't for DMARC reasons.
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
Mark,
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 12:18 AM Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> wrote:
On 1/31/21 6:42 PM, steve lund wrote:
Tom,
Good point. It has been a LONG time since I wandered into attempting to read email headers. Here is a sample header from the list that recently had the domain related bounce issue Let me know if you see anything that is mis-configured. BTW, the ISP is going to switch to the current Mailman version 3 fairly soon. I don't know if this is going to help the situation or not.
Probably not.
================================================================================================================
.......
From: Donald Belk via MSing-ride <msing-ride@lists.msinglinks.org> Reply-To: Donald Belk <donaldrbelk@gmail.com>
And the From: is munged by the list and the original From: added to Repty-To:
So this list is Munging From: headers, and if that was the case when the bounces occurred (maybe 3 weeks before the unsubscribes), the bounces probably weren't for DMARC reasons.
I don't believe that the ISP changed the list configuration recently. So if this is NOT a DMARC issue then any other thought as to what it could be?
Also remember that for some unexplained reason I, as the list manager, didn't receive the intervening bounce messages either. I don't know if these tripped Gmail's "throw it out" SPAM filter or something else happened.
While troubleshooting this the ISP guy subscribed one of his bogus email addresses to the list to see if I would get the bounce messages. So far I did get one of them but Gmail put it in my SPAM box. I drug the message to my Forums tab where hopefully when it happens again I will see it.
Thanks, Steve
On 2/1/21 6:07 AM, steve lund wrote:
I don't believe that the ISP changed the list configuration recently. So if this is NOT a DMARC issue then any other thought as to what it could be?
DMARC mitigations are list settings set by the list admin (you) via the web admin UI, not by the ISP.
Also remember that for some unexplained reason I, as the list manager, didn't receive the intervening bounce messages either. I don't know if these tripped Gmail's "throw it out" SPAM filter or something else happened.
Go to the web admin UI Bounce Processing page. Are all the notifications set to Yes? If so, and you are not receiving The notification on disable or the notification on bounce increment if that is on, and your address is correct for owner on the General Options page, then see below.
While troubleshooting this the ISP guy subscribed one of his bogus email addresses to the list to see if I would get the bounce messages. So far I did get one of them but Gmail put it in my SPAM box. I drug the message to my Forums tab where hopefully when it happens again I will see it.
So it seems the notices are being sent and delivered to your spam
folder. You will need to regularly check that folder for these messages,
or you MAY (I'm not an expert on this) be able to create a filter in
Gmail to deliver them to some other folder, assuming Gmail filters trump
spam. For purposes of filtering, these messages are
From: mailman@<list domain> To: <list_name>-owner@<list domain> Subject: Bounce action notification
These notices contain a copy of the bounce DSN and are the only way short of MTA logs that you will know why the messages are bouncing.
If I had to guess though, the next most likely thing after DMARC is the sending server was blacklisted by some recipient domains.
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
Mark,
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 12:05 PM Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> wrote:
On 2/1/21 6:07 AM, steve lund wrote:
I don't believe that the ISP changed the list configuration recently. So
if
this is NOT a DMARC issue then any other thought as to what it could be?
DMARC mitigations are list settings set by the list admin (you) via the web admin UI, not by the ISP.
Found that page. It was set to Munge.
Also remember that for some unexplained reason I, as the list manager, didn't receive the intervening bounce messages either. I don't know if these tripped Gmail's "throw it out" SPAM filter or something else happened.
Go to the web admin UI Bounce Processing page. Are all the notifications set to Yes? If so, and you are not receiving The notification on disable or the notification on bounce increment if that is on, and your address is correct for owner on the General Options page, then see below.
While troubleshooting this the ISP guy subscribed one of his bogus email addresses to the list to see if I would get the bounce messages. So far I did get one of them but Gmail put it in my SPAM box. I drug the message to my Forums tab where hopefully when it happens again I will see it.
So it seems the notices are being sent and delivered to your spam folder. You will need to regularly check that folder for these messages, or you MAY (I'm not an expert on this) be able to create a filter in Gmail to deliver them to some other folder, assuming Gmail filters trump
spam. For purposes of filtering, these messages areFrom: mailman@<list domain> To: <list_name>-owner@<list domain> Subject: Bounce action notification
Previously, i.e. 6 months ago I was getting these notifications just fine through my Gmail account. This tells me that the list config is correct. I can't explain why these went from no bounce notifications only unsubscribe to now being sent to SPAM folder. Seems like Google is mucking about with its filters!
These notices contain a copy of the bounce DSN and are the only way short of MTA logs that you will know why the messages are bouncing.
If I had to guess though, the next most likely thing after DMARC is the sending server was blacklisted by some recipient domains.
This is what I was afraid of. Is there any way of confirming or denying that this is happening. ISP guy complained about having to tell Yahoo the mail server was a mail list and not SPAM. This would tell me that it was a blacklist problem.
So how does an ISP keep their mail server OFF of the SPAM blacklist?
Thanks, Steve
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
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/
On 2/1/21 6:25 PM, steve lund wrote:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 12:05 PM Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> wrote:
So it seems the notices are being sent and delivered to your spam folder. You will need to regularly check that folder for these messages, or you MAY (I'm not an expert on this) be able to create a filter in Gmail to deliver them to some other folder, assuming Gmail filters trump
spam. For purposes of filtering, these messages areFrom: mailman@<list domain> To: <list_name>-owner@<list domain> Subject: Bounce action notification
Previously, i.e. 6 months ago I was getting these notifications just fine through my Gmail account. This tells me that the list config is correct. I can't explain why these went from no bounce notifications only unsubscribe to now being sent to SPAM folder. Seems like Google is mucking about with its filters!
Probably so, but you can't control that. It may have to do with the specific content of the notices or not. You could try setting up a gmail filter on some of the above the put the message in another folder, or just check your spam folder often.
If I had to guess though, the next most likely thing after DMARC is the sending server was blacklisted by some recipient domains.
This is what I was afraid of. Is there any way of confirming or denying that this is happening. ISP guy complained about having to tell Yahoo the mail server was a mail list and not SPAM. This would tell me that it was a blacklist problem.
So how does an ISP keep their mail server OFF of the SPAM blacklist?
This is all up to the ISP. They can see in their mail logs if they are being blocked and if they are competent, they will notice that and do whatever need to be done to get the blocks removed.
The only thing you can do is report to the ISP if you get a bounce notice that indicated the sending IP is blocked.
I suggest you ensure that all the notifications including bounce_notify_owner_on_bounce_increment are set to Yes and monitor your spam folder so you will at least be aware of any issue before user's delivery is disabled.
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
Mark,
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 10:14 PM Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> wrote:
On 2/1/21 6:25 PM, steve lund wrote:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 12:05 PM Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> wrote:
So it seems the notices are being sent and delivered to your spam folder. You will need to regularly check that folder for these messages, or you MAY (I'm not an expert on this) be able to create a filter in Gmail to deliver them to some other folder, assuming Gmail filters trump
spam. For purposes of filtering, these messages areFrom: mailman@<list domain> To: <list_name>-owner@<list domain> Subject: Bounce action notification
Previously, i.e. 6 months ago I was getting these notifications just fine through my Gmail account. This tells me that the list config is correct. I can't explain why these went from no bounce notifications only unsubscribe to now being sent to SPAM folder. Seems like Google is mucking about with its filters!
Probably so, but you can't control that. It may have to do with the specific content of the notices or not. You could try setting up a gmail filter on some of the above the put the message in another folder, or just check your spam folder often.
If I had to guess though, the next most likely thing after DMARC is the sending server was blacklisted by some recipient domains.
This is what I was afraid of. Is there any way of confirming or denying that this is happening. ISP guy complained about having to tell Yahoo the mail server was a mail list and not SPAM. This would tell me that it was a blacklist problem.
So how does an ISP keep their mail server OFF of the SPAM blacklist?
This is all up to the ISP. They can see in their mail logs if they are being blocked and if they are competent, they will notice that and do whatever need to be done to get the blocks removed.
Episodes like this last one make me question their competency.
The only thing you can do is report to the ISP if you get a bounce notice that indicated the sending IP is blocked.
What does this message typically look like? I don't recall seeing "IP is blocked" in bounce messages.
I suggest you ensure that all the notifications including bounce_notify_owner_on_bounce_increment are set to Yes and monitor your spam folder so you will at least be aware of any issue before user's delivery is disabled
This option is set correctly. I'll keep checking my SPAM folder.
Thanks, Steve
--
Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
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/
On 2/2/21 4:58 PM, steve lund wrote:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 10:14 PM Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> wrote:
The only thing you can do is report to the ISP if you get a bounce notice that indicated the sending IP is blocked.
What does this message typically look like? I don't recall seeing "IP is blocked" in bounce messages.
The notices you get from Mailman about bounce scores being incremented or delivery disabled due to bounce have the original delivery status notification (DSN) attached. If the reason is that the sending IP is blocked or on a block list, it will say that. Other possibilities include that the recipient server refused to talk or the connection timed out.
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
Mark,
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 12:07 AM Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> wrote:
On 2/2/21 4:58 PM, steve lund wrote:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 10:14 PM Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> wrote:
The only thing you can do is report to the ISP if you get a bounce notice that indicated the sending IP is blocked.
What does this message typically look like? I don't recall seeing "IP is blocked" in bounce messages.
The notices you get from Mailman about bounce scores being incremented or delivery disabled due to bounce have the original delivery status notification (DSN) attached. If the reason is that the sending IP is blocked or on a block list, it will say that. Other possibilities include that the recipient server refused to talk or the connection timed out.
I'll keep a lookout for those and may return with specifics if /when this problem resurfaces.
Thanks, Steve
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
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/
steve lund writes:
Seems like Google is mucking about with its filters!
That's their raison d'etre. (It certainly can't be their execrable UI.)
They do a good job, sometime they make mistakes. Users want them to shoot first and ask questions later. They're pretty good (too good when it comes to test messages :-( ) about resisting user pressure to decrease mail reliability.
If I had to guess though, the next most likely thing after DMARC is the sending server was blacklisted by some recipient domains.
This is what I was afraid of. Is there any way of confirming or denying that this is happening.
Not individual domains. However, most likely they subscribe to a block list ("black hole"). There are free services that will check block lists for you. I have a meeting in 5 minutes so no time to look up now, maybe after work if nobody else chimes in.
So how does an ISP keep their mail server OFF of the SPAM blacklist?
Get the DNS in order (MXes have A records, A records round-trip through PTR, DKIM, DMARC, and SPF configs are present, correct DKIM pubkey is present). Configure DKIM signing and ARC sealing in the MTA. Subscribe to various reporting services at major email providers (Google, Yahoo!, outlook, o365, hotmail, others). It's a PITA.
Check our FAQ and archives:
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/Steve
steve lund writes:
Seems like Google is mucking about with its filters!
That's their raison d'etre. (It certainly can't be their execrable UI.)
They do a good job at filtering, and it gets better over time. Sometimes they make mistakes. Users want them to shoot first and ask questions later. They're pretty good (too good when it comes to mailing list test messages :-( ) about resisting user pressure to change their filtering practices.
If I had to guess though, the next most likely thing after DMARC is the sending server was blacklisted by some recipient domains.
This is what I was afraid of. Is there any way of confirming or denying that this is happening.
Not individual domains, without asking them directly. However, most likely rather than doing their own blocking, they subscribe to a block list ("black hole"). There are free services that will check the major block lists for you. I have a meeting in 5 minutes so no time to look up now, maybe after work if nobody else chimes in.
So how does an ISP keep their mail server OFF of the SPAM blacklist?
Get the DNS in order (MXes have A records, A records round-trip through PTR, DKIM, DMARC, and SPF configs are present, correct DKIM pubkey is present). Configure DKIM signing and ARC sealing in the MTA. Subscribe to various reporting services at major email providers (Google, Yahoo!, outlook, o365, hotmail, others). It's a PITA.
Check our FAQ and archives:
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/Steve
Dear all,
I get a batch of bounces once a month from GMail, when mailman sends out the monthly reminders.
When I look into the headers of those notifications, it looks like they miss the DKIM signature, which is super weird, because the notification about the bounce that mailman sends to the listowner has a DKIM signature. I wonder what is going wrong there. My understanding is that the signing is done by rspamd and that mailman doesn't have anything to do with it. Why aren't all messages signed?
Cheers,
Johannes
Am 27.01.21 um 20:11 schrieb Mark Sapiro:
On 1/26/21 5:57 PM, steve lund wrote:
We seem to be having all too frequent occurrences of multiple bounces that seem to be related only to the domain of the address recipient.
As pointed out in another reply, this is likely a DMARC issue and MM 2.1.34 has settings to mitigate this.
The interesting thing about this occurrence other than losing the name associated with the email address (since the members were unsubscribed not just disabled) is that I NEVER received ANY bounce notifications other than the unsubscribe notification. I find this quite odd and unsettling considering that the list shows that it IS configured to send earlier bounce notifications and I have received them in the past... just not leading up to this latest incident. The typical error message is:
jonxx_dajxxn@yahoo.com <jones_dajuan@yahoo.com> has been removed from MSing-ride. (disabled address)
That occurred after the users delivery was disabled by bounce and the notices to the user were exhausted. When the delivery was first disabled, (three weeks earlier with default bounce settings) there was a notice sent to the list admins about the disable if the list's admin Bounce processing -> bounce_notify_owner_on_disable setting is Yes.
Also, you can set Bounce processing -> bounce_notify_owner_on_bounce_increment to Yes to be sent a notice when a bounce is received that increments the score.
If one or both of these settings is Yes and you aren't receiving the notices, that's between Mailman's MTA and you.
So I guess that my question is whether or not these types of problems are now endemic to all email lists or if....Our ISP is technically "challenged" and
- Doesn't know how to properly configure Mailman to send out the requested notifications.
Since you got the unsub notice, I'd expect that all requested notices have been sent.
- Continues to get blacklisted for sending SPAM even though they don't.
What are your settings under Privacy options... -> Sender filters for dmarc_moderation_action and dmarc_quarantine_moderation_action? at a minimum, they should be Munge From and Yes respectively.
On 2/1/21 1:58 AM, Johannes Rohr wrote:
I get a batch of bounces once a month from GMail, when mailman sends out the monthly reminders.
When I look into the headers of those notifications, it looks like they miss the DKIM signature, which is super weird, because the notification about the bounce that mailman sends to the listowner has a DKIM signature. I wonder what is going wrong there. My understanding is that the signing is done by rspamd and that mailman doesn't have anything to do with it. Why aren't all messages signed?
As you note, Mailman has nothing to do with DKIM signing of outgoing mail. Your outgoing MTA does it, probably by invoking some milter. It could be rspamd or something else. You have to look at the configuration. If you are using rspamd's DKIM signing module, see <https://rspamd.com/doc/modules/dkim_signing.html>.
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
Am 01.02.2021 um 17:22 schrieb Mark Sapiro:
On 2/1/21 1:58 AM, Johannes Rohr wrote:
I get a batch of bounces once a month from GMail, when mailman sends out the monthly reminders.
When I look into the headers of those notifications, it looks like they miss the DKIM signature, which is super weird, because the notification about the bounce that mailman sends to the listowner has a DKIM signature. I wonder what is going wrong there. My understanding is that the signing is done by rspamd and that mailman doesn't have anything to do with it. Why aren't all messages signed?
As you note, Mailman has nothing to do with DKIM signing of outgoing mail. Your outgoing MTA does it, probably by invoking some milter. It could be rspamd or something else. You have to look at the configuration. If you are using rspamd's DKIM signing module, see <https://rspamd.com/doc/modules/dkim_signing.html>.
Actually I investigated and it turned out to be a mailman issue after all, at least partially: Namely that the monthly notification is send out by the DEFAULT_EMAIL_HOST regardless of the urlhost of the respective list. Is this because internally these are mails to the site wide mailman mailing list?
There was no DKIM key for the DEFAULT_EMAIL_HOST (which I have changed now) but the only time this had an effect for me was once a month, when mailman sends out the reminders.
Thanks for your continued great support!
Johannes
On 3/2/21 2:24 AM, Johannes Rohr wrote:
Actually I investigated and it turned out to be a mailman issue after all, at least partially: Namely that the monthly notification is send out by the DEFAULT_EMAIL_HOST regardless of the urlhost of the respective list. Is this because internally these are mails to the site wide mailman mailing list?
Monthly password reminders (thankfully gone in Mailman 3) are one single message to a user covering all the user's subscriptions on that server which may be multiple lists in multiple domains. Thus, they are sent from the site list address because in general there is no single list context for them.
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
participants (6)
-
Johannes Rohr -
Mark Sapiro -
Russell Clemings -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
steve lund -
Thomas Coradeschi