From dave at horsfall.org Tue Aug 19 07:03:25 2025 From: dave at horsfall.org (Dave Horsfall) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 07:03:25 +1000 (EST) Subject: [COFF] I didn't know that Gordon Bell woked at UNSW Message-ID: Interesting news for the UNSWites here: https://videogamehistorian.wordpress.com/2014/12/11/historical-interlude-from-the-mainframe-to-the-minicomputer-part-3-dec-and-data-general/ ``Unsure what to do after graduation, he accepted an offer to travel to Australia to set up a new computer lab in the electrical engineering department of the University of New South Wales.'' Unlikely tp have been the CSU or Power Eng... (Seen in TUHS, but not noted as such) -- Dave From aki at insinga.com Tue Aug 19 09:47:53 2025 From: aki at insinga.com (Aron Insinga) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 19:47:53 -0400 Subject: [COFF] I didn't know that Gordon Bell woked at UNSW In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2aef62e1-05c2-4794-ada6-0b4f2247f9b1@insinga.com> Here is the paper about his work at the University of New South Wales: /A Translation Routine for the DEUCE Computer/ by R. C. Brigham and C. G. Bell https://www.ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/SODA_Bell.html On 8/18/25 17:03, Dave Horsfall wrote: > Interesting news for the UNSWites here: > > https://videogamehistorian.wordpress.com/2014/12/11/historical-interlude-from-the-mainframe-to-the-minicomputer-part-3-dec-and-data-general/ > > ``Unsure what to do after graduation, he accepted an offer to travel to > Australia to set up a new computer lab in the electrical engineering > department of the University of New South Wales.'' > > Unlikely tp have been the CSU or Power Eng... > > (Seen in TUHS, but not noted as such) > > -- Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From coff at tuhs.org Thu Aug 21 14:59:16 2025 From: coff at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey via COFF) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 14:59:16 +1000 Subject: [COFF] OT: Any DKIM People Out There? Message-ID: Hi all, I've had a question/issue raised with DKIM on the TUHS/COFF mailing lists from a subscriber. I'm running Mailman3 and I'm a DKIM newbie. They say: Why have all mails from the tuhs mailing list, except those from a real tuhs.org domain (basically only yours), an invalid DKIM? Background, my mail provider will switch its DMARC policy from "none" to "quarantine" and then to "reject" - which will result first in tuhs-mails being marked as "spam" and later being rejected. Other mailing lists I receive, switch the sender domain to the list domain itself. This results in a correct DKIM. Wouldn't this be possible for the tuhs-list too? He gives, as examples: Maillist mails from senders "via TUHS " pass DMARC (e.g. Cameron Míċeál Tyre via TUHS ). Maillist mails from senders without the "via TUHS" part fail DMARC (e.g. Blake McBride ). I'd be very happy to have someone/some people review my mailman3, postfix and rspamd configuration and suggest changes. Many thanks in advance, Warren P.S. Anybody know of an Internet server still running continuously from before May 1991 (esp. being maintaned by the same owner)? viz: https://minnie.tuhs.org/minannounce.txt From steffen at sdaoden.eu Thu Aug 21 22:41:41 2025 From: steffen at sdaoden.eu (Steffen Nurpmeso) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 14:41:41 +0200 Subject: [COFF] OT: Any DKIM People Out There? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20250821124141.BEJr5YJE@steffen%sdaoden.eu> Warren Toomey via COFF wrote in : |Hi all, I've had a question/issue raised with DKIM on the TUHS/COFF mailing |lists from a subscriber. I'm running Mailman3 and I'm a DKIM newbie. They |say: | | Why have all mails from the tuhs mailing list, except those | from a real tuhs.org domain (basically only yours), an invalid | DKIM? Background, my mail provider will switch its DMARC policy from | "none" to "quarantine" and then to "reject" - which will result first | in tuhs-mails being marked as "spam" and later being rejected. Other | mailing lists I receive, switch the sender domain to the list domain | itself. This results in a correct DKIM. Wouldn't this be possible | for the tuhs-list too? | |He gives, as examples: | | Maillist mails from senders "via TUHS " pass DMARC | (e.g. Cameron Míċeál Tyre via TUHS ). | Maillist mails from senders without the "via TUHS" part fail DMARC | (e.g. Blake McBride ). | |I'd be very happy to have someone/some people review my mailman3, postfix |and rspamd configuration and suggest changes. Didn't you provide dedicated DMARC/non-DMARC lists in the past? Ah. I have no idea on rspamd, and do not get me started on the IETF email scene, they are really, really no good people. But. Mailman3 config is at [1] - Remove (or rename) old DKIM headers [1]: not so important, but good. Because. remove_dkim_headers: yes Since TUHS/COFF luckily still tags the Subject: line, which i personally like very much, any old signature is broken. So they need to be removed since DKIM gives verifiers practically free hands what is to be tested. Now DKIM says it is sufficient if *one* signature can be verified. But leaving in false ones may cause unnecessary traffic, and maybe even these rubbish Authentication-Results stuff. (They represent a snapshot in time and space, which may be wrong in the second after they are generated.) - Perform the mitigations [2]. Ensure to *always* mitigate and change the From: line to those "via" style things. dmarc_mitigate_unconditionally dmarc_mitigate_action: munge_from [1] https://docs.mailman3.org/projects/mailman/en/latest/src/mailman/config/docs/config.html [2] https://docs.mailman3.org/projects/mailman/en/latest/src/mailman/handlers/docs/dmarc-mitigations.html In general it can only be "mitigate, mitigate, mitigate" (think Ballmers "Developers! Developers! Developers! -- just like that!), and unconditionally so, because why have all the DNS lookups and all the noise for nothing, just give anyone the same appearance. And. Even if those IETF email well people push through the wrong standard, the next DKIM will allow user interfaces to unroll changes to the IMF (internet message format aka RFC 5322 aka email message), and therefore *user interfaces* can undo the From: mitigation, and show the original From:, and therefore all the people who hate that "x via y" syntax will later have the possibility to do something about that for themselves (shall their MUA allow so), whereas on the actual SMTP etc level things (only partially, alas!!) get more straight again. Having said all that i have no Mailman3, i still run Mailman2, but the above is at least what [1] and [2] says, and the direction is the right one. ;) |Many thanks in advance, | Warren | |P.S. Anybody know of an Internet server still running continuously from |before May 1991 (esp. being maintaned by the same owner)? viz: |https://minnie.tuhs.org/minannounce.txt --End of --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) From steffen at sdaoden.eu Thu Aug 21 22:53:04 2025 From: steffen at sdaoden.eu (Steffen Nurpmeso) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 14:53:04 +0200 Subject: [COFF] OT: Any DKIM People Out There? In-Reply-To: <20250821124141.BEJr5YJE@steffen%sdaoden.eu> References: <20250821124141.BEJr5YJE@steffen%sdaoden.eu> Message-ID: <20250821125304.4zkVMemq@steffen%sdaoden.eu> Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in <20250821124141.BEJr5YJE at steffen%sdaoden.eu>: |Warren Toomey via COFF wrote in | : ||Hi all, I've had a question/issue raised with DKIM on the TUHS/COFF \ ||mailing ||lists from a subscriber. I'm running Mailman3 and I'm a DKIM newbie. They ||say: ... ||I'd be very happy to have someone/some people review my mailman3, postfix ||and rspamd configuration and suggest changes. ... |But. Mailman3 config is at [1] | | - Remove (or rename) old DKIM headers [1]: not so important, but | good. Because. | remove_dkim_headers: yes So that seems to be done. ... | - Perform the mitigations [2]. Ensure to *always* mitigate and | change the From: line to those "via" style things. That not. Please let me try post one message one more time, as i normally filter DKIM etc very heavily, because of all the noise. | dmarc_mitigate_unconditionally | dmarc_mitigate_action: munge_from | | [1] https://docs.mailman3.org/projects/mailman/en/latest/src/mailman/con\ | fig/docs/config.html | [2] https://docs.mailman3.org/projects/mailman/en/latest/src/mailman/han\ | dlers/docs/dmarc-mitigations.html | |In general it can only be "mitigate, mitigate, mitigate" (think |Ballmers "Developers! Developers! Developers! -- just like that!), |and unconditionally so, because why have all the DNS lookups and |all the noise for nothing, just give anyone the same appearance. ... Sorry for that noise. --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) From steffen at sdaoden.eu Thu Aug 21 23:17:59 2025 From: steffen at sdaoden.eu (Steffen Nurpmeso) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 15:17:59 +0200 Subject: [COFF] OT: Any DKIM People Out There? In-Reply-To: <20250821125304.4zkVMemq@steffen%sdaoden.eu> References: <20250821124141.BEJr5YJE@steffen%sdaoden.eu> <20250821125304.4zkVMemq@steffen%sdaoden.eu> Message-ID: <20250821131759.0XVnj6ds@steffen%sdaoden.eu> Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in <20250821125304.4zkVMemq at steffen%sdaoden.eu>: |Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in | <20250821124141.BEJr5YJE at steffen%sdaoden.eu>: ||Warren Toomey via COFF wrote in || : |||Hi all, I've had a question/issue raised with DKIM on the TUHS/COFF \ |||mailing |||lists from a subscriber. I'm running Mailman3 and I'm a DKIM newbie. They |||say: | ... |||I'd be very happy to have someone/some people review my mailman3, postfix |||and rspamd configuration and suggest changes. | ... ||But. Mailman3 config is at [1] || || - Remove (or rename) old DKIM headers [1]: not so important, but || good. Because. || remove_dkim_headers: yes | |So that seems to be done. (Within the [mta] configuration section i think this belongs.) | ... || - Perform the mitigations [2]. Ensure to *always* mitigate and || change the From: line to those "via" style things. | |That not. Please let me try post one message one more time, as |i normally filter DKIM etc very heavily, because of all the noise. | || dmarc_mitigate_unconditionally || dmarc_mitigate_action: munge_from || || [1] https://docs.mailman3.org/projects/mailman/en/latest/src/mailman/con\ || \ || fig/docs/config.html || [2] https://docs.mailman3.org/projects/mailman/en/latest/src/mailman/han\ || \ || dlers/docs/dmarc-mitigations.html || ||In general it can only be "mitigate, mitigate, mitigate" (think ||Ballmers "Developers! Developers! Developers! -- just like that!), ||and unconditionally so, because why have all the DNS lookups and ||all the noise for nothing, just give anyone the same appearance. | ... | |Sorry for that noise. Hmm. Indeed, dear Warren, whereas your message had a DKIM signature (even two), this one of mine that was returned via COFF does not have any DKIM signature in it at all? I think Mailman3 can do anything on its own, the question is how you do it, via it, via external milters (rspam), and how it all interacts :-) Email is too complicated, but you will not move them a bit, it is very, very sad. All this could however also be PEBKAC ("Problem Exists Between Keyboard and Chair") from my side. But the above are anyway the correct suggestions. How to do it with Mailman3, with that terrible documentation? Maybe https://docs.mailman3.org/projects/mailman/en/latest/_sources/src/mailman/rules/docs/dmarc-mitigation.rst.txt helps you a little bit more. --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)