On 2014-11-09, Stephen Harris <lists at spuddy.org> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 05:58:53PM -0800, Keith Keller wrote: >> The fundamental reason is because Mailman is rewriting the headers in an >> incompatible way. It is not his site's usage of DKIM. This is a known >> issue with Mailman. (I used to have a good link explaining the issue, >> but can't find it now; if I find it later I'll post it.) > > So we have a 20-year old piece of technology ("mailman") and a modern > proposal ("DKIM")... and somehow it's mailman's fault. Uh huh. Mailman is by my reckoning only about 15 years old, and DKIM has been around for about a decade. So I'm not really convinced by your argument here. Plus, it's not like the Mailman folks themselves are blaming DKIM. Here's a page they wrote up. http://wiki.list.org/display/DEV/DKIM "Make no mistake though, DKIM cannot be ignored" I haven't looked very hard, but I haven't found anything authoritative on Mailman vs. DKIM more recent than 2012 (which itself means they've been thinking about it for a long time; the wiki doc talks about another document written in 2009). > The problem, ultimately, is with senders with a "reject" policy published. > DKIM is not compatible with internet email today, and so mail from those > senders _will_ be rejected. Well, someone's gotta be first, because there's no way we'll get everyone agree to switch over on a given date. If Yahoo and Google are doing it they're forcing the issue sooner rather than later. I'm not sure that's a bad thing. --keith -- kkeller at wombat.san-francisco.ca.us