From: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | José Luis Tallón <jltallon(at)adv-solutions(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: New email address |
Date: | 2015-11-27 06:43:34 |
Message-ID: | 5657FB96.7070501@kaltenbrunner.cc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/26/2015 09:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> writes:
>> that seems entirely doable with our current infrastructure (and even
>> with minimal-to-no hackery on mj2) - but it still carries the "changes
>> From:" issue :/
>
> Yeah. What do you think of the other approach of trying to preserve
> validity of the incoming DKIM-Signature (in particular, by not changing
> the Subject or message body)?
well not changing the subject seems like something we could do without
fuss - not changing the body would likely mean we would (again) get a
number of people asking "how do I unsubscribe", but maybe we will have
to live with that.
As for google/gmail - it seems they are indeed moving towards p=reject
based on:
https://dmarc.org/2015/10/global-mailbox-providers-deploying-dmarc-to-protect-users/
https://wordtothewise.com/2015/10/dmarc-news-gmail-preject-and-arc/
so we have to do "something" anyway (before June 2016) - I have not
actually studied the referenced ietf drafts mentioned in the second post
yet so maybe there is something in there to help with our usecase...
Stefan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-11-27 07:32:15 | Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-11-27 06:42:29 | Re: Error with index on unlogged table |