Re: New email address

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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