Обсуждение: "Extern" on email address
Does anyone know why *EXTERN* is being added to my email address for postings to the lists? From: 'Bruce Momjian *EXTERN*' <bruce@momjian.us> --------https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160606154513.GA19170%40momjian.us I don't see that being added in test emails on my end. Any ideas? I guess I will find out if happens again when I see this posting come back to me. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:06:21PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Does anyone know why *EXTERN* is being added to my email address for > postings to the lists? > > From: 'Bruce Momjian *EXTERN*' <bruce@momjian.us> > -------- > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160606154513.GA19170%40momjian.us > > > I don't see that being added in test emails on my end. Any ideas? > > I guess I will find out if happens again when I see this posting come > back to me. OK, odd, it didn't happen this time. I guess I will just wait for it to happen again. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 6:07 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:06:21PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Does anyone know why *EXTERN* is being added to my email address for
> postings to the lists?
>
> From: 'Bruce Momjian *EXTERN*' <bruce@momjian.us>
> --------
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160606154513.GA19170%40momjian.us
>
>
> I don't see that being added in test emails on my end. Any ideas?
>
> I guess I will find out if happens again when I see this posting come
> back to me.
OK, odd, it didn't happen this time. I guess I will just wait for it to
happen again.
Well, your MUA put it there :)
I guess it did so because the MUA of Albe Laurenz did it first at https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B53859B69%40ntex2010i.host.magwien.gv.at - but only in the To field. I guess your MUA must've copied it from the to field when you did reply. Which is a very strange thing to do, but that's what it looks like to me.
Adding "extern" is something I've seen more and more organizations do to any address that's not from their own company, to make it less likely that people send emails to the wrong place. It's quite annoying, but understandable. The real weirdness is why your MUA is copying it to the From field. Perhaps yo uhave set something up as part of dealing with multiple email addresses?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 06:12:04PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > OK, odd, it didn't happen this time. I guess I will just wait for it to > happen again. > > > > Well, your MUA put it there :) > > I guess it did so because the MUA of Albe Laurenz did it first at https:// > www.postgresql.org/message-id/ > A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B53859B69%40ntex2010i.host.magwien.gv.at - but > only in the To field. I guess your MUA must've copied it from the to field when > you did reply. Which is a very strange thing to do, but that's what it looks > like to me. It must be some Mutt thing. I see it happened to 'David G. Johnston' in this email too, but I am also in the "To:" field (also odd), but didn't get EXTERN. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B53858FCE%40ntex2010i.host.magwien.gv.at > Adding "extern" is something I've seen more and more organizations do to any > address that's not from their own company, to make it less likely that people > send emails to the wrong place. It's quite annoying, but understandable. The > real weirdness is why your MUA is copying it to the From field. Perhaps yo > uhave set something up as part of dealing with multiple email addresses? Yes, odd. Should we strip it on our end? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 06:12:04PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Adding "extern" is something I've seen more and more organizations do to any
>> address that's not from their own company, to make it less likely that people
>> send emails to the wrong place. It's quite annoying, but understandable. The
>> real weirdness is why your MUA is copying it to the From field. Perhaps yo
>> uhave set something up as part of dealing with multiple email addresses?
> Yes, odd. Should we strip it on our end?
Even if we did that today, we'd have to undo it in a month or so, because
header-munging is doomed. See previous discussion of not falling foul of
DKIM signatures.
(Hey infra guys, when are you making that change anyway?)
regards, tom lane
Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 06:12:04PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > Adding "extern" is something I've seen more and more organizations do to any > > address that's not from their own company, to make it less likely that people > > send emails to the wrong place. It's quite annoying, but understandable. The > > real weirdness is why your MUA is copying it to the From field. Perhaps yo > > uhave set something up as part of dealing with multiple email addresses? > > Yes, odd. Should we strip it on our end? Certainly not! The list server's job is to redistribute emails, and in this day and age of mail signing and anti-spoofing and source-identification measures, we should do so with the minimum of mangling possible. For instance, at some point in the not too distant future, we're likely to remove the [HACKERS] subject tags and the footers we currently add, also. Those elements are already causing us trouble with Yahoo, and that's only going to get worse over time. (I think we're already breaking Gmail's signatures too). -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 > For instance, at some point in the not too distant > future, we're likely to remove the [HACKERS] subject tags and the > footers we currently add, also. Ugh, really? The change of subject line in particular would be really unfortunate. Please run that change past -general before you make it. :) - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/ PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201606071137 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAldW6mUACgkQvJuQZxSWSsj2zQCfQd25HhrT5WlbYrnRKKy+bUAX FMwAoPTKEIO1f1I6TFk7GO4Vh9CRpiww =oTZ/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Greg, * Greg Sabino Mullane (greg@turnstep.com) wrote: > > For instance, at some point in the not too distant > > future, we're likely to remove the [HACKERS] subject tags and the > > footers we currently add, also. > > Ugh, really? The change of subject line in particular would be really > unfortunate. Please run that change past -general before you make it. :) Unfortunately, it's not optional. As much as the comment is that we're "likely" to remove them, we really don't have a choice. Before too much longer, DMARC is going to be used and respected and required by big email organizations (eg: GMail ...) and if we change the Subject (or a number of other headers, or the body of the email) then the DMARC will fail and the email will be rejected. We're going to have to remove the subject tags and the footer from all of the emails due to this. Thanks! Stephen
On 06/07/2016 08:53 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Greg, > > * Greg Sabino Mullane (greg@turnstep.com) wrote: >>> For instance, at some point in the not too distant >>> future, we're likely to remove the [HACKERS] subject tags and the >>> footers we currently add, also. >> >> Ugh, really? The change of subject line in particular would be really >> unfortunate. Please run that change past -general before you make it. :) > Unfortunately, it's not optional. As much as the comment is that we're > "likely" to remove them, we really don't have a choice. Before too much > longer, DMARC is going to be used and respected and required by big > email organizations (eg: GMail ...) and if we change the Subject (or a > number of other headers, or the body of the email) then the DMARC will > fail and the email will be rejected. > > We're going to have to remove the subject tags and the footer from all > of the emails due to this. Outside of a warning to the lists that it is going to happen, this isn't a big deal. The only real concern is filters and you the email address isn't going to change, so we can filter on that. JD > > Thanks! > > Stephen > -- Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> On 06/07/2016 08:53 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> Unfortunately, it's not optional. As much as the comment is that we're
>> "likely" to remove them, we really don't have a choice. Before too much
>> longer, DMARC is going to be used and respected and required by big
>> email organizations (eg: GMail ...) and if we change the Subject (or a
>> number of other headers, or the body of the email) then the DMARC will
>> fail and the email will be rejected.
>>
>> We're going to have to remove the subject tags and the footer from all
>> of the emails due to this.
> Outside of a warning to the lists that it is going to happen, this isn't
> a big deal. The only real concern is filters and you the email address
> isn't going to change, so we can filter on that.
I expect you can find the past discussions about this if you search
the archives for "DMARC", but the core point is that the only way we
can continue doing header-munging is if we change the From: address
so that list messages appear to originate from the listserv rather than
from the actual author. Otherwise, many large sites are going to start
treating it as spam/forgery; Yahoo already does. We pretty much agreed
that that solution is far worse than giving up header-munging and
footers.
regards, tom lane