Обсуждение: unsubscribe

The information contained in this e-mail and in any attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. This message has been scanned for known computer viruses.

 

 

Thank you!

 

Kumar Ramalingam

 

From: Zacher, Stacy [mailto:szacher@mcw.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 12:56 PM
To: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: unsubscribe

 

 

The information contained in this e-mail and in any attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. This message has been scanned for known computer viruses.

-- 
This email was Malware checked by UTM 9. http://www.sophos.com

-- 
FERNAUSOFT GmbH
Gartenstraße 42 - 37269 Eschwege

Telefon (0 56 51) 95 99-0
Telefax (0 56 51) 95 99-90

eMail martin.fernau@fernausoft.de
Internet http://www.fernausoft.de

Handelsregister Eschwege, HRB 1585
Geschäftsführer: Axel Fernau, Ulrich Fernau, Martin Fernau
Steuernummer 025 233 00041
USt-ID-Nr. DE 178 554 622

PLS unsubscribe via https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/

Today I received dozens of unsubscribe mails, spamming my mail account :-)

thx

Am 20.11.2017 um 19:42 schrieb Ramalingam, Sankarakumar:

 

 

Thank you!

 

Kumar Ramalingam

 

From: Zacher, Stacy [mailto:szacher@mcw.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 12:56 PM
To: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: unsubscribe

 

 

The information contained in this e-mail and in any attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. This message has been scanned for known computer viruses.

-- 
This email was Malware checked by UTM 9. http://www.sophos.com

-- 
FERNAUSOFT GmbH
Gartenstraße 42 - 37269 Eschwege

Telefon (0 56 51) 95 99-0
Telefax (0 56 51) 95 99-90

eMail martin.fernau@fernausoft.de
Internet http://www.fernausoft.de

Handelsregister Eschwege, HRB 1585
Geschäftsführer: Axel Fernau, Ulrich Fernau, Martin Fernau
Steuernummer 025 233 00041
USt-ID-Nr. DE 178 554 622

Vick Khera <vivek@khera.org> writes:
> Did the list software change? All my messages from here are not being properly auto-files by the filter I have set
up. 

Yes - did you not see either of the "migration to pglister" messages?
There's a summary of the changes at

https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PGLister_Announce

Those looking to unsubscribe should also read that page.  Sending
"unsubscribe" messages to the list will not accomplish anything
except to annoy the rest of the list membership.
        regards, tom lane

On 11/20/2017 11:11 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Vick Khera <vivek@khera.org> writes:
>> Did the list software change? All my messages from here are not being properly auto-files by the filter I have set
up.
> Yes - did you not see either of the "migration to pglister" messages?
> There's a summary of the changes at

I certainly didn't. It is rather difficult for people with day lives 
that do not revolve around postgresql.org to keep up with the large 
amount of traffic that comes from the lists.

>
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PGLister_Announce
>
> Those looking to unsubscribe should also read that page.  Sending
> "unsubscribe" messages to the list will not accomplish anything
> except to annoy the rest of the list membership.

This is true but I would suggest it was a flaw in the migration not the 
user wondering why they are currently getting spammed because their 
filters no longer work.

Thanks,

JD

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc

PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://pgconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

> On 20 Nov 2017, at 20:11, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Those looking to unsubscribe should also read that page.  Sending
> "unsubscribe" messages to the list will not accomplish anything
> except to annoy the rest of the list membership.

I imagine that some people might think along the lines of: "Annoy them enough, and someone will do something about it".

And they could be right too, as no doubt some subscribers might figure that sending an auto-reply to any unsubscribe
messageto the list to the person in question - perhaps with an explanation of how to unsubscribe properly - would make
thatperson use the correct method for unsubscribing rather sooner than later. 

Please, as tempting as that sounds, be gentle to the list server and do not do that.

Alban Hertroys
--
If you can't see the forest for the trees,
cut the trees and you'll find there is no forest.

A common feature in modern Email client is to allow users to unsubscribe in one line. This works by sending a email
titled"unsubscribe" to the listserv, which most listserv these days are able to understand and unsubscribe the user. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Alban Hertroys [mailto:haramrae@gmail.com]
Sent: November 20, 2017 2:41 PM
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Vick Khera <vivek@khera.org>; pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: To all who wish to unsubscribe


> On 20 Nov 2017, at 20:11, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Those looking to unsubscribe should also read that page.  Sending
> "unsubscribe" messages to the list will not accomplish anything except
> to annoy the rest of the list membership.

I imagine that some people might think along the lines of: "Annoy them enough, and someone will do something about it".

And they could be right too, as no doubt some subscribers might figure that sending an auto-reply to any unsubscribe
messageto the list to the person in question - perhaps with an explanation of how to unsubscribe properly - would make
thatperson use the correct method for unsubscribing rather sooner than later. 

Please, as tempting as that sounds, be gentle to the list server and do not do that.

Alban Hertroys
--
If you can't see the forest for the trees, cut the trees and you'll find there is no forest.

On 11/20/2017 11:40 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>         https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PGLister_Announce
>         <https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PGLister_Announce>
>
>         Those looking to unsubscribe should also read that page.  Sending
>         "unsubscribe" messages to the list will not accomplish anything
>         except to annoy the rest of the list membership.
>
>
>     This is true but I would suggest it was a flaw in the migration
>     not the user wondering why they are currently getting spammed
>     because their filters no longer work.
>
>
> So do you have any suggestions for actually fixing that? Given that we 
> have more lists to migrate, if you can figure out a way to make those 
> changes without peoples filters not matching, we'd be happy to hear it..

I was thinking about that. I was actually surprised at how many people 
this affected. It only affected one filter for me so it wasn't that big 
of a deal. One thing I would note is that there is no longer a footer 
that tells people what to do if they want to unsubscribe. Perhaps one 
thing that could be done is a header (for a temporary time period) that 
says:

The mailing list software of Postgresql.org has changed. Please see this 
page on instructions on how to manage your subscription and filters.

And then after the temporary time period that becomes a footer?

Thanks,

JD

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc

PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://pgconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

On 11/20/2017 11:45 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>> So do you have any suggestions for actually fixing that? Given that 
>> we have more lists to migrate, if you can figure out a way to make 
>> those changes without peoples filters not matching, we'd be happy to 
>> hear it..
>
> I was thinking about that. I was actually surprised at how many people 
> this affected. It only affected one filter for me so it wasn't that 
> big of a deal. One thing I would note is that there is no longer a 
> footer that tells people what to do if they want to unsubscribe. 
> Perhaps one thing that could be done is a header (for a temporary time 
> period) that says:
>
> The mailing list software of Postgresql.org has changed. Please see 
> this page on instructions on how to manage your subscription and filters.
>
> And then after the temporary time period that becomes a footer?

I would also note that removing the ability to unsubscribe in an 
standard fashion is rather user unfriendly. Although many spammers 
require that you go to a website, we rarely (I have never seen it) have 
to log in to unsubscribe from a list. If you add that most people and 
especially people that are on this list are going to be used to using 
email to subscribe/unsubscribe...

Thanks,

JD

>
> Thanks,
>
> JD
>

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc

PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://pgconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> On 11/20/2017 11:40 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> One thing I would note is that there is no longer a footer 
> that tells people what to do if they want to unsubscribe. Perhaps one 
> thing that could be done is a header (for a temporary time period) that 
> says:
> The mailing list software of Postgresql.org has changed. Please see this 
> page on instructions on how to manage your subscription and filters.
> And then after the temporary time period that becomes a footer?

Unfortunately, the removal of the footer is a feature not a bug.
In order to be DKIM-compatible and thus help avoid becoming classified
as spammers, we can't mangle message content anymore, just like we
can't mangle the Subject: line.

In principle, the List-Unsubscribe: headers that are now included in
mailing list headers allow MUAs to offer convenient unsubscribe
buttons.  Not sure how many of the people who are complaining use
mail agents that don't handle that.
        regards, tom lane

On 11/20/2017 12:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Unfortunately, the removal of the footer is a feature not a bug.
> In order to be DKIM-compatible and thus help avoid becoming classified
> as spammers, we can't mangle message content anymore, just like we
> can't mangle the Subject: line.

Ugh, o.k.
> In principle, the List-Unsubscribe: headers that are now included in
> mailing list headers allow MUAs to offer convenient unsubscribe
> buttons.  Not sure how many of the people who are complaining use
> mail agents that don't handle that.

I use Thunderbird which I imagine most people on the lists are using. I 
can't find where these would work to unsubscribe.

Well this is a pain for everyone it seems.

JD

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc

PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://pgconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

On 11/20/2017 11:40 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:

        https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PGLister_Announce
        <https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PGLister_Announce>

        Those looking to unsubscribe should also read that page.  Sending
        "unsubscribe" messages to the list will not accomplish anything
        except to annoy the rest of the list membership.


    This is true but I would suggest it was a flaw in the migration
    not the user wondering why they are currently getting spammed
    because their filters no longer work.


So do you have any suggestions for actually fixing that? Given that we have more lists to migrate, if you can figure out a way to make those changes without peoples filters not matching, we'd be happy to hear it..

I was thinking about that. I was actually surprised at how many people this affected. It only affected one filter for me so it wasn't that big of a deal. One thing I would note is that there is no longer a footer that tells people what to do if they want to unsubscribe. Perhaps one thing that could be done is a header (for a temporary time period) that says:

The mailing list software of Postgresql.org has changed. Please see this page on instructions on how to manage your subscription and filters.

And then after the temporary time period that becomes a footer?

Thanks,

JD

On 11/20/2017 11:45 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Perhaps one thing that could be done is a header (for a temporary time 
> period) that says:
>
> The mailing list software of Postgresql.org has changed. Please see 
> this page on instructions on how to manage your subscription and filters. 

vast majority of users never see the full headers, they just see From, 
To, Date, Subject, and everything else is hidden.  on a phone or a web 
mail system like gmail, its very hard to see that stuff.


-- 
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> Right. This is why you can send an emtil to say
> pgsql-general-unsubscribe@lists.postgresql.org to unsubscribe.

Oh?  First I've heard of that, and I do not see it mentioned on the
PGLister_Announce wiki page.  It definitely should be.
        regards, tom lane

On 11/20/2017 12:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

Unfortunately, the removal of the footer is a feature not a bug.
In order to be DKIM-compatible and thus help avoid becoming classified
as spammers, we can't mangle message content anymore, just like we
can't mangle the Subject: line.

Ugh, o.k.

In principle, the List-Unsubscribe: headers that are now included in
mailing list headers allow MUAs to offer convenient unsubscribe
buttons.  Not sure how many of the people who are complaining use
mail agents that don't handle that.

I use Thunderbird which I imagine most people on the lists are using. I can't find where these would work to unsubscribe.

Well this is a pain for everyone it seems.

JD

On 11/20/2017 11:44 AM, Mengxuan Xia wrote:
> A common feature in modern Email client is to allow users to unsubscribe in one line. This works by sending a email
titled"unsubscribe" to the listserv, which most listserv these days are able to understand and unsubscribe the user.
 


thats a feature of many email list SERVERS, not the email clients.  
Mailman in particular looks for the major command keywords in the first 
few lines of the email, and will respond to them, even if they are sent 
to the regular list address instead of the command address.



-- 
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

On 11/20/2017 12:07 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> I use Thunderbird which I imagine most people on the lists are using. 
> I can't find where these would work to unsubscribe. 

In Thunderbird, ctrl-U shows the full headers, but the List-Unsubscribe 
links are NOT shown as hotlinks, so you have to copy/paste them to a 
browser.



-- 
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

On 11/20/2017 12:20 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:07 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com 
> <mailto:jd@commandprompt.com>> wrote:

> Not even remotely. People use gmail. See 
> https://blog.hagander.net/mail-agents-in-the-postgresql-community-233/ 
> <https://blog.hagander.net/mail-agents-in-the-postgresql-community-233/>.
> 
> And gmail does automatically show an unsubscribe link on these mails. 
> See attached screenshot for the mail from Jonathan earlier today as an 
> example.

Well Thunderbird is #2 ;) but yes I am aware that Gmail has the 
unsubscribe feature.

Thanks!

JD


-- 
Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.

Not even remotely. People use gmail. See https://blog.hagander.net/mail-agents-in-the-postgresql-community-233/.

its rather hard to tell some of those colors apart on my monitor.

Sigh, not surprised about gmail, its amazing how many .com's and .org's use it now.  I'm not at ALL a fan of how the web client handles a bunch of stuff like replies, & hiding your own messages from yourself.    I mostly prefer to use gmail as an imap server w/ thunderbird.

-- 
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

Edson Carlos Ericksson Richter wrote:

> I've been affected also, in a minor way, because I used to receive digest  2
> or 3 times a day, and now I'm receiving every e-mail again.
> This is, at least, annoying.
> would be better to keep the user options when migrating from one software to
> another.

Digests as a feature were considered for pglister and ultimately
rejected.  There is no value in digest nowadays: if you don't want the
emails to show up in your inbox individually, filter them to another
folder.  They impact to the rest of the subscribers too, when those
subscribed to the digest reply to it breaking all threads and quoting.
Also, they would be more work and resources to implement.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

On 11/20/2017 12:49 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> Sigh, not surprised about gmail, its amazing how many .com's and 
> .org's use it now.  I'm not at ALL a fan of how the web client handles 
> a bunch of stuff like replies, & hiding your own messages from yourself. 

oh and my biggest gripe, gmail seems to ignore the References header AND 
replies often don't seem to have that header, so if you're using a 
traditional threaded email client like Thunderbird, replies from gmail 
users don't seem to get threaded correctly and show up as new 
threads.    gmail itself seems to thread purely based on Subject.


-- 
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

Magnus Hagander wrote:

> So do you have any suggestions for actually fixing that? Given that we have
> more lists to migrate, if you can figure out a way to make those changes
> without peoples filters not matching, we'd be happy to hear it..

I guess it's a bit late at this point, but in theory keeping the same
List-Id headers as before may help with how many people have to
change their filters.
Using lists.postgresql.org as the new domain was explained
in the announce, but it's not clear why List-Id had to follow
the other List-* fields.
Unless it was the reason mentioned in the last sentence below.

Quoting RFC-2919:

4. Persistence of List Identifiers
  Although the list identifier MAY be changed by the mailing list  administrator this is not desirable.  (Note that
thereis no  disadvantage to changing the description portion of the List-Id  header.)  A MUA may not recognize the
changeto the list identifier  because the MUA SHOULD treat a different list identifier as a  different list.  As such
themailing list administrator SHOULD avoid  changing the list identifier even when the host serving the list  changes.
Onthe other hand, transitioning from an informal  unmanaged-list-id-namespace to a domain namespace is an  acceptable
reasonto change the list identifier. 


Best regards,
--
Daniel Vérité
PostgreSQL-powered mailer: http://www.manitou-mail.org
Twitter: @DanielVerite

Greetings,

* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> In principle, the List-Unsubscribe: headers that are now included in
> mailing list headers allow MUAs to offer convenient unsubscribe
> buttons.  Not sure how many of the people who are complaining use
> mail agents that don't handle that.

Quite a few people have been using that capability with their MUAs very
successfully.  Magnus just mentioned we've had some 200 or so individual
unsubscribes done that way (note that wasn't distinct addresses but
unsubscribes across all lists).

Thanks!

Stephen

On 2017-11-20 21:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>> On 11/20/2017 11:40 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> One thing I would note is that there is no longer a footer that
>> tells people what to do if they want to unsubscribe. Perhaps one 
>> thing that could be done is a header (for a temporary time period)
>> that says:
>> The mailing list software of Postgresql.org has changed. Please see
>> this page on instructions on how to manage your subscription and
>> filters. And then after the temporary time period that becomes a
>> footer?
> 
> Unfortunately, the removal of the footer is a feature not a bug. In
> order to be DKIM-compatible and thus help avoid becoming classified 
> as spammers, we can't mangle message content anymore, just like we 
> can't mangle the Subject: line.
I don't miss the footers, but see RFC 6376, "5.3.1. Body Length Limits". 
Two fragments quoted are copied below:

> A body length count MAY be specified to limit the signature 
> calculation to an initial prefix of the body text, measured in 
> octets. If the body length count is not specified, the entire message
> body is signed.

> INFORMATIVE RATIONALE: This capability is provided because it is very
> common for mailing lists to add trailers to messages (e.g., 
> instructions on how to get off the list). Until those messages are
> also signed, the body length count is a useful tool for the Verifier
> since it can, as a matter of policy, accept messages having valid
> signatures with extraneous data.

> On Nov 20, 2017, at 2:18 PM, Piotr Stefaniak <postgres@piotr-stefaniak.me> wrote:
>
> On 2017-11-20 21:03, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>>> On 11/20/2017 11:40 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> One thing I would note is that there is no longer a footer that
>>> tells people what to do if they want to unsubscribe. Perhaps one
>>> thing that could be done is a header (for a temporary time period)
>>> that says:
>>> The mailing list software of Postgresql.org has changed. Please see
>>> this page on instructions on how to manage your subscription and
>>> filters. And then after the temporary time period that becomes a
>>> footer?
>>
>> Unfortunately, the removal of the footer is a feature not a bug. In
>> order to be DKIM-compatible and thus help avoid becoming classified
>> as spammers, we can't mangle message content anymore, just like we
>> can't mangle the Subject: line.
> I don't miss the footers, but see RFC 6376, "5.3.1. Body Length Limits".
> Two fragments quoted are copied below:

That's poor practice, for several reasons - replay attacks with added content
and it being an extremely rare practice that's likely to trigger bugs in DKIM
validation are two. The latter is the much bigger deal.

It also doesn't help much for most MIME encoded mail (including base64
encoded plain text, like the mail I'm replying to).

Pretending those paragraphs aren't there is the right thing to do.

Cheers, Steve



>
>> A body length count MAY be specified to limit the signature
>> calculation to an initial prefix of the body text, measured in
>> octets. If the body length count is not specified, the entire message
>> body is signed.
>
>> INFORMATIVE RATIONALE: This capability is provided because it is very
>> common for mailing lists to add trailers to messages (e.g.,
>> instructions on how to get off the list). Until those messages are
>> also signed, the body length count is a useful tool for the Verifier
>> since it can, as a matter of policy, accept messages having valid
>> signatures with extraneous data.

On Mon, 2017-11-20 at 18:12 -0200, Edson Carlos Ericksson Richter
wrote:
> Seems that Thunderbird (latest stable version) doesn't understand
> the unsubscribe header.
> Or, perhaps, it is wrong.

Or maybe you need an addon.


-- 
Jan Claeys

On 21/11/17 09:20, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:07 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com 
> <mailto:jd@commandprompt.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 11/20/2017 12:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>         Unfortunately, the removal of the footer is a feature not a bug.
>         In order to be DKIM-compatible and thus help avoid becoming
>         classified
>         as spammers, we can't mangle message content anymore, just like we
>         can't mangle the Subject: line.
>
>
>     Ugh, o.k.
>
>         In principle, the List-Unsubscribe: headers that are now
>         included in
>         mailing list headers allow MUAs to offer convenient unsubscribe
>         buttons.  Not sure how many of the people who are complaining use
>         mail agents that don't handle that.
>
>
>     I use Thunderbird which I imagine most people on the lists are
>     using. I can't find where these would work to unsubscribe.
>
>
> Not even remotely. People use gmail. See 
> https://blog.hagander.net/mail-agents-in-the-postgresql-community-233/ 
> <https://blog.hagander.net/mail-agents-in-the-postgresql-community-233/>.
>
> And gmail does automatically show an unsubscribe link on these mails. 
> See attached screenshot for the mail from Jonathan earlier today as an 
> example.
>
> -- 
>  Magnus Hagander
>  Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
>  Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>

Not everyone uses gmail!

I would never recommend it use for either for personal or business use - 
as Googol scans it for commercial [purposes.


Cheers,
Gavin

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 08:40:08PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> 
> Which is why the extra email was sent *after* the migration, to make sure
> it would be the first one *not* hitting peoples filters, and thus have a
> chance of being read even if the others weren't.

That surely didn't work, since the relevant people received that mail
after the migration had happened.

> So do you have any suggestions for actually fixing that? Given that we have
> more lists to migrate, if you can figure out a way to make those changes
> without peoples filters not matching, we'd be happy to hear it..

I don't have an answer for that, but I will note that if this
migration was announced weeks in advance I certainly missed it.  I
admit I was busy, but I can't find it in the mail I didn't read yet,
either.

Maybe a two week heads up that some time in the future the mail is
going to change (the same announcement as was sent) would help?

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 02:46:08PM -0800, Steve Atkins wrote:
> That's poor practice, for several reasons - replay attacks with added content
> and it being an extremely rare practice that's likely to trigger bugs in DKIM
> validation are two. The latter is the much bigger deal.
> 
> It also doesn't help much for most MIME encoded mail (including base64
> encoded plain text, like the mail I'm replying to).
> 
> Pretending those paragraphs aren't there is the right thing to do.

Yes.  Also the DMARC and forthcoming ARC mechanisms -- super important
for people behind gmail and yahoo and so on -- make that feature not
really work, AFAICT.  I think that part of DKIM is busted, and the
authors of it I've talked to seem to agree.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@crankycanuck.ca

Andrew, all,

* Andrew Sullivan (ajs@crankycanuck.ca) wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 08:40:08PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > So do you have any suggestions for actually fixing that? Given that we have
> > more lists to migrate, if you can figure out a way to make those changes
> > without peoples filters not matching, we'd be happy to hear it..
>
> I don't have an answer for that, but I will note that if this
> migration was announced weeks in advance I certainly missed it.  I
> admit I was busy, but I can't find it in the mail I didn't read yet,
> either.
>
> Maybe a two week heads up that some time in the future the mail is
> going to change (the same announcement as was sent) would help?

This is really all pointless.  No, further announcements wouldn't have
helped with all the unsubscribe complaints, which is far-and-away the
biggest issue with these kinds of migrations.  Yes, if we'd sent out
more emails about the migrations then maybe a few people who actually
want to be on the lists would have had their filters in place ahead of
time, but those aren't the people asking to be unsubscribed or (for the
most part) are complaining about the noise from the lists (and a good
number of them probably wouldn't have bothered to do anything until the
migration happened anyway).

This was always going to be bumpy.  We could have made it a bit smoother
by guessing ahead of time that people might just replace the subject
with 'unsubscribe' and catching those emails through a filter before
they hit the list and handling them manually, but there was no shortage
of various other ways that people asked to be unsubscribed that such a
filter wouldn't have caught (such as replying to an existing thread and
then asking in the body to be removed).

As a side-note to those who keep saying "email'ing the list with
unsubscribe doesn't do anything"- no, that's actually wrong, I *have*
been watching the lists and unsubscribing everyone who emails the list
asking to be because there's absolutely zero point in trying to 'force'
people to follow the directions; it just creates unnecessary angst.
Instead of replying to those emails, please, just ignore them- I will
get to them and take care of unsubscribing those individuals, or if I
can't figure out what email they're subscribed with then I'll email them
directly, off-list, and try to get it resolved.

Thankfully, the inbounds have slowed quite a bit and therefore,
hopefully, we're nearing the end of all of this and we can let these
threads just die and move on.  There's actually very few lists left to
migrate and they're either fully moderated (-announce) or small
(regional lists) and unlikely to have these kinds of issues.  All we're
doing now is debating how best to keep the barn door closed after the
horses have escaped and all that.

Thanks!

Stephen

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 02:46:08PM -0800, Steve Atkins wrote:

That's poor practice, for several reasons - replay attacks with added content
and it being an extremely rare practice that's likely to trigger bugs in DKIM
validation are two. The latter is the much bigger deal.

It also doesn't help much for most MIME encoded mail (including base64
encoded plain text, like the mail I'm replying to).

Pretending those paragraphs aren't there is the right thing to do.

Yes.  Also the DMARC and forthcoming ARC mechanisms -- super important
for people behind gmail and yahoo and so on -- make that feature not
really work, AFAICT.  I think that part of DKIM is busted, and the
authors of it I've talked to seem to agree.

it seems to *ME* like a simpler solution to the original problem would have been to simply STRIP any DKIM out of the original messages, and continue to munge headers and footers like mail list reflectors have been doing for decades.

-- 
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

> On Nov 21, 2017, at 10:39 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 02:46:08PM -0800, Steve Atkins wrote:
>> That's poor practice, for several reasons - replay attacks with added content
>> and it being an extremely rare practice that's likely to trigger bugs in DKIM
>> validation are two. The latter is the much bigger deal.
>>
>> It also doesn't help much for most MIME encoded mail (including base64
>> encoded plain text, like the mail I'm replying to).
>>
>> Pretending those paragraphs aren't there is the right thing to do.
>
> Yes.  Also the DMARC and forthcoming ARC mechanisms -- super important
> for people behind gmail and yahoo and so on -- make that feature not
> really work, AFAICT.

It doesn't break DMARC or ARC as they only care if the mail is
authenticated via SPF or DKIM (with an aligned, blah, blah, blah) so
if the DKIM passes, even with an l= flag, it's OK. But ...

> I think that part of DKIM is busted, and the
> authors of it I've talked to seem to agree.

Pretty much, yes. Certainly for mail where you don't have tight control
over how it's generated.

Removing Subject tagging and footers of the messages isn't an accidental
side effect of the migration, it's (I assume) a primary goal of it.
If that weren't done, more and more people at large consumer mailbox
providers would increasingly have problems sending mail successfully
to the lists.

Peoples mail filters will just have to adjust.

Blame Yahoo, not PGDG.

Cheers, Steve

it seems to *ME* like a simpler solution to the original problem would have been to simply STRIP any DKIM out of the original messages, and continue to munge headers and footers like mail list reflectors have been doing for decades.

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 01:48:50PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> 
> This is really all pointless.

Gee, I love it when people dismiss observations with categorical
statements.  I'll remember to shut up in the future.  Given my
erstwhile employer, it's probably insane for me to be posting anyway.

> No, further announcements wouldn't have
> helped with all the unsubscribe complaints, which is far-and-away the
> biggest issue with these kinds of migrations.  Yes, if we'd sent out
> more emails about the migrations then maybe a few people who actually
> want to be on the lists would have had their filters in place ahead of
> time, but those aren't the people asking to be unsubscribed or (for the
> most part) are complaining about the noise from the lists (and a good
> number of them probably wouldn't have bothered to do anything until the
> migration happened anyway).

All I, at least, was trying to say was that there were some of us who
were entirely surprised, and I'm kind of amazed that a bunch of
database people didn't announce a planned migration weeks in advance.
I a prepared to bet a pretty good lunch that most of us who've spent
any time in databaseland would be pretty grouchy if such a migration
were sprung on us with a before/after message bounded even by hours,
let alone minutes.  For me, my mail handling is part of infrastructure
-- I get thousands of mails a day -- and so surprising me sucks from
my POV.

None of this is intended to denigrate the many hours of donated time
or the good intentions or even the good idea of getting away from mj2.
But I think it's hard to claim that more warning is bad, particularly
in the absence of a test universe on which to do A/B tests.

Best regards,

A



-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@crankycanuck.ca

All,

* Alan Hodgson (ahodgson@lists.simkin.ca) wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-11-21 at 10:52 -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
> >     it seems to *ME* like a simpler solution to the original problem
> >       would have been to simply STRIP any DKIM out of the original
> >       messages, and continue to munge headers and footers like mail
> > list
> >       reflectors have been doing for decades.
>
> That wouldn't help; DMARC policies are based on the From: header. If
> you want to munge messages from DMARC-reject senders you need to
> replace the From: header with your own.
>
> Email doesn't work the same as it did decades ago. Senders need to keep
> up.

Please, let's take this debate elsewhere, it's not appropriate here.  If
you'd really like to discuss further, you're welcome to email me
directly.

Thanks!

Stephen

On 11/21/2017 10:59 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> All I, at least, was trying to say was that there were some of us who
> were entirely surprised, and I'm kind of amazed that a bunch of
> database people didn't announce a planned migration weeks in advance.


they did.   you must not have noticed it.


-- 
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

Steve Atkins wrote:

> Removing Subject tagging and footers of the messages isn't an accidental
> side effect of the migration, it's (I assume) a primary goal of it.
> If that weren't done, more and more people at large consumer mailbox
> providers would increasingly have problems sending mail successfully
> to the lists. 

Actually, the old software had a lot of warts and we wanted to be out of
it.  Not least the fact that it's been dead for over a decade now.
(For one, the web interface to unsubscribe was terrible.)

The pain is related to pglister only because it was decided to change
both things at once.  We could have removed the subject prefixes and the
footers before changing the software, but what would have been the
point?  The software itself is not causing any troubles; it's the config
changes that are.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Greetings,

* David G. Johnston (david.g.johnston@gmail.com) wrote:
> What would help the majority of readers is if a rule could be added that
> keys off of the word "unsubscribe" (and maybe some other key phrases) and
> dumps it into a non-public moderation queue where requests can be handled
> manually and prevented from reaching the list members.

This was already done.  Originally it was just against the body, now it
looks in the body and in the Subject.  Hindsight being what it is, we're
sorry we didn't have it in both places to begin with, but that's all
water under the bridge at this point.

We're now getting more emails on these threads than about either
PostgreSQL or people wanting to be unsubscribed.  Please, let's move on.

Thanks!

Stephen

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:14 PM, David G. Johnston <
> david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What would help the majority of readers is if a rule could be added that
>> keys off of the word "unsubscribe" (and maybe some other key phrases) and
>> dumps it into a non-public moderation queue where requests can be handled
>> manually and prevented from reaching the list members.

> This is already the case, but clearly this rule was a bit too restrictive
> to avoid too many false positives.

It should also be pointed out that the old system did WAY too much of
that, often causing messages to get dumped into the moderation queue
because they happened to contain words that looked like majordomo
commands.  I do not think that an aggressive filter for "unsubscribe"
is a good idea --- note, for example, that none of this thread would
be seeing the light of day in any timely fashion if the new code
did that.

Hopefully things have more or less settled out now and we can get on
with normal discussions?  Please?

[ wanders away wondering why last week's migration of the hackers
lists produced far less complaining... ]
        regards, tom lane

On 11/21/2017 11:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> [ wanders away wondering why last week's migration of the hackers
> lists produced far less complaining... ]

I am not sure if that is sarcasm but I think the reason is pretty self 
explanatory. -Hackers have all the people that understand how all this 
works, -general has all the people that don't.

JD

>             regards, tom lane
>

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc

PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://pgconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

On 11/21/2017 11:42 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> I am not sure if that is sarcasm but I think the reason is pretty self 
> explanatory. -Hackers have all the people that understand how all this 
> works, -general has all the people that don't. 

rotfl, and ain't that the truth.


-- 
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> writes:
> On 11/21/2017 11:42 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> I am not sure if that is sarcasm but I think the reason is pretty self 
>> explanatory. -Hackers have all the people that understand how all this 
>> works, -general has all the people that don't. 

> rotfl, and ain't that the truth.

I'm not sure I believe it.  People reading any database-oriented mailing
list are going to be pretty tech-savvy, I'd think.
        regards, tom lane

On 11/21/2017 12:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I'm not sure I believe it.  People reading any database-oriented mailing
> list are going to be pretty tech-savvy, I'd think.

Not to burn bytes but I think your view is narrow on this one. I am 
tech-savvy although I am certainly not a hacker. The only reason I had 
any idea how to deal with the mailing list debacle is because I come 
from a Unix sysadmin background. If you take someone who is a data 
analyst, real DBA (think MSSQL but happens to have PostgreSQL 
somewhere), or god forbid a newcomer who's only exposure to mailing 
lists is Slack? Then you have a whole slew of people that know literally 
nothing of mailing lists except that they hit their filters and now they 
don't. Then let's also remember the lazy factor.

Thanks,

JD

>
>             regards, tom lane
>

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc

PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://pgconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:57:32AM -0800, Alan Hodgson wrote:
> That wouldn't help; DMARC policies are based on the From: header.

This is why DKIM and DMARC are different, just to be clear.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@crankycanuck.ca

I kind of agree with both.  Personally, my strengths are data communication. Databases are frequent end points. Mailing
lists?Have never had a need to work with them, so they’re in the, “don’t care” bucket so long as they work.  

As far as missing , ‘unsubscribe’ in headers/titles, my totally unscientific experience with a limited number of
mailinglists (email, text, etc) gives me the impression unsubscribe in header/title is by far the most common method
provided.Also seems simplest, but then I’m just a user.......;) 

/s/jr
Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 22, 2017, at 05:02, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> writes:
>>> On 11/21/2017 11:42 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> I am not sure if that is sarcasm but I think the reason is pretty self
>>> explanatory. -Hackers have all the people that understand how all this
>>> works, -general has all the people that don't.
>
>> rotfl, and ain't that the truth.
>
> I'm not sure I believe it.  People reading any database-oriented mailing
> list are going to be pretty tech-savvy, I'd think.
>
>            regards, tom lane
>

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 11:05:37AM -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
> they did.   you must not have noticed it.

I'm sorry I was misinformed, then.  I'll look more carefully in my
archives and the public ones.  I apologise for suggesting that this
was not properly announced.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@crankycanuck.ca

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 11:46:42AM -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 11/21/2017 11:42 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > I am not sure if that is sarcasm but I think the reason is pretty self
> > explanatory. -Hackers have all the people that understand how all this
> > works, -general has all the people that don't.
> 
> rotfl, and ain't that the truth.

I know it's enjoyable to make fun of one's users -- those of us who
make the DNS happen have apparently made a career of it -- but I don't
think it's fair or likely to endear the database system I love to
those who might be coming from, say, the database system that employs
me.

I am pretty sure I know as much about mail processing as most of the
people who were involved in this change.  I apparently missed an
important announcement; that hardly surprises me given the volume of
mail I read, and I am pleased to have been corrected (and apologised
accordingly).

But pointing and laughing at your users and suggesting that they are
ignorant rubes is what causes people to turn their backs.  I am not
going to apologise for being offended by that.  It's a nasty thing to
do on a -general list.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@crankycanuck.ca

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Jerry Regan
<jerry.regan@concertoglobalresources.com> wrote:
> I kind of agree with both.  Personally, my strengths are data communication. Databases are frequent end points.
Mailinglists? Have never had a need to work with them, so they’re in the, “don’t care” bucket so long as they work. 
>
> As far as missing , ‘unsubscribe’ in headers/titles, my totally unscientific experience with a limited number of
mailinglists (email, text, etc) gives me the impression unsubscribe in header/title is by far the most common method
provided.Also seems simplest, but then I’m just a user.......;) 

This is exactly a point.
Every single ML has a links in the footer to either the ML archives or
to the (un)-subscribe page.

But apparently from now on PG lists will not have it and if you want
to unsubscribe from the list you will need to open a header (why?)
find the appropriate link inside a bunch of non-useful information and
copy paste it into the mailer.

Can anyone explain why?
Why not do what other ML do - provide the links in the footer?

Thank you.

>
> /s/jr
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Nov 22, 2017, at 05:02, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>
>> John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> writes:
>>>> On 11/21/2017 11:42 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>>> I am not sure if that is sarcasm but I think the reason is pretty self
>>>> explanatory. -Hackers have all the people that understand how all this
>>>> works, -general has all the people that don't.
>>
>>> rotfl, and ain't that the truth.
>>
>> I'm not sure I believe it.  People reading any database-oriented mailing
>> list are going to be pretty tech-savvy, I'd think.
>>
>>            regards, tom lane
>>
>

Igor,

* Igor Korot (ikorot01@gmail.com) wrote:
> Can anyone explain why?
> Why not do what other ML do - provide the links in the footer?

This has been explained multiple times in multiple ways, including at
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PGLister_Announce

Please drop it.  We won't be going back to having a footer and
continuing to insist that the arguments outlined in the above post
don't exist or aren't valid isn't going to change that.

If you'd really like to further discuss this, please take it off-list
and contact me directly and we can chat about it, but this is not
appropriate for this list any longer.

Thanks!

Stephen

The password reset form does not work. I do not get any reset emails when entering mine, so I can’t unsubscribe.

> Den 22. nov. 2017 kl. 04.24 skrev Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>:
>
> Igor,
>
> * Igor Korot (ikorot01@gmail.com) wrote:
>> Can anyone explain why?
>> Why not do what other ML do - provide the links in the footer?
>
> This has been explained multiple times in multiple ways, including at
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PGLister_Announce
>
> Please drop it.  We won't be going back to having a footer and
> continuing to insist that the arguments outlined in the above post
> don't exist or aren't valid isn't going to change that.
>
> If you'd really like to further discuss this, please take it off-list
> and contact me directly and we can chat about it, but this is not
> appropriate for this list any longer.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Stephen

Confirmed, I did not get a reset email either.  Also, I had subscribed to the digest version and now I get individual
emails- which is why I needed to login, but my password no longer worked.  Sigh.  Mike 

-----Original Message-----
From: Niels Kristian Schjødt [mailto:nielskristian@autouncle.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 12:06 AM
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: migrations (was Re: To all who wish to unsubscribe)

The password reset form does not work. I do not get any reset emails when entering mine, so I can’t unsubscribe.

Greetings everyone,

* Mike Sofen (msofen@runbox.com) wrote:
> Confirmed, I did not get a reset email either.  Also, I had subscribed to the digest version and now I get individual
emails- which is why I needed to login, but my password no longer worked.  Sigh.  Mike
 

I've replied to Mike directly off-list, but wanted to let others know
who might be concerned about the reset link- it *does* work, but only if
you have an account already in the system.

It's possible to be subscribed to the PostgreSQL mailing lists without
having a community account.  If you find that you don't get an email
after going through the 'reset password' link, try creating a new
account instead.

Once you have an account, you can go over to the
https://lists.postgresql.org/manage system and see any lists which that
email address is subscribed to and, further, add other email addresses
that you have control over (there will be an email sent to each address
with a link for you to follow to confirm that you do have control over
it) and then you'll be able to see the lists those email addresses are
associated with.

Hope that helps, as always, please feel free to contact me directly,
off-list, with any further questions or concerns regarding the
PostgreSQL mailing lists or your subscriptions or accounts.

Thanks!

Stephen

On 22 November 2017 at 14:19, Vick Khera <vivek@khera.org> wrote:
>
> This sounds to me like you're going to run afoul of CAN-SPAM unsubscribe rules. You should re-think this workflow.


CAN-SPAM only applies to commercial email, "the primary purpose of
which is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial
product or service”. This is a discussion mailing list and as such
does not come under the remit of CAN-SPAM.

Geoff

Vick,

* Vick Khera (vivek@khera.org) wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > * Mike Sofen (msofen@runbox.com) wrote:
> > > Confirmed, I did not get a reset email either.  Also, I had subscribed
> > to the digest version and now I get individual emails - which is why I
> > needed to login, but my password no longer worked.  Sigh.  Mike
> >
> > I've replied to Mike directly off-list, but wanted to let others know
> > who might be concerned about the reset link- it *does* work, but only if
> > you have an account already in the system.
> >
> > It's possible to be subscribed to the PostgreSQL mailing lists without
> > having a community account.  If you find that you don't get an email
> > after going through the 'reset password' link, try creating a new
> > account instead.
>
> This sounds to me like you're going to run afoul of CAN-SPAM unsubscribe
> rules. You should re-think this workflow.

To be clear- you do *NOT* need an account to unsubscribe, you need an
account to be able to manage your subscriptions and to change global
settings for your subscriptions.

As mentioned many times already, you can unsubscribe, without an
account, by following the link in each and every email that is sent by
the list server in the List-Unsubscribe header, as hundreds have already
done.  Further, an email can be sent to
pgsql-general-unsubscribe@postgresql.org to request unsubscription
without having an account.

And, lastly, if you wish to have any further discussion regarding the
mailing lists, please contact me directly, I believe we've gone over
this quite enough already on this list and it's not really what this
list is for.

Thanks!

Stephen

Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@geoff.dj> writes:
> On 22 November 2017 at 14:19, Vick Khera <vivek@khera.org> wrote:
>> This sounds to me like you're going to run afoul of CAN-SPAM unsubscribe rules. You should re-think this workflow.

> CAN-SPAM only applies to commercial email, "the primary purpose of
> which is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial
> product or service”. This is a discussion mailing list and as such
> does not come under the remit of CAN-SPAM.

Even if it did, you do not need a community account to unsubscribe,
only if you want to adjust your subscription in some other way.
        regards, tom lane