beneroth changed the topic of #picolisp to: PicoLisp language | The scalpel of software development | Channel Log: | Check for more information
seninha has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<tankf33der> Morning
<tankf33der> sent llvm16 email right now
<abu[m]> I see that a mail from you arrived at the server at 06:51:08, but I did not get it here. No error message either.
<tankf33der> Maybe list script failling? Try to sent externally to list
<tankf33der> yourself.
<abu[m]> I did not change the script, and it worked still in March
<tankf33der> Ok
<abu[m]> I sent a test mail now
<tankf33der> Do you see it on server?
<abu[m]> Not yet. Server polls every four minutes.
<abu[m]> Now I see it on the server
<abu[m]> And I also got it here
<tankf33der> Me too
<abu[m]> ok
<abu[m]> Hmm, so why does the other mail got lost?
<tankf33der> It lost in script, right?
<abu[m]> No, it is received and resent to all members of the list
<abu[m]> If it were rejected because of an unsubscribed address, I would see it in the log
<tankf33der> Maybe i was wrongly unsubscribed?
<tankf33der> Replied to your test mail in the list right now
<abu[m]> No, your address is correctly subscribed
<abu[m]> Now on the server: tankf33der@... 2023-04-07 07:38:14
<abu[m]> And it is sent out
<abu[m]> Is there something special in the mail body or attachments?
<tankf33der> Simple email
<tankf33der> in text mode
<abu[m]> ok
<tankf33der> create new list with debug enabled
<abu[m]> There is not much to debug
<abu[m]> It fetches mails, checks the subscriber list, and sends
<abu[m]> You got my test mail, and also the responses from zg...@... ?
<tankf33der> Yes
<abu[m]> Your address used to work all the time
<abu[m]> e.g. last year
<abu[m]> Shall I ask in the list if *anyone* received your mails?
<tankf33der> I belive nobody received since no email on archive
<abu[m]> yeah
<abu[m]> So it must be that the send from the server fails?
<tankf33der> I think so
<tankf33der> you should debug
<abu[m]> Then there would be an error in the log
<tankf33der> eh
<abu[m]> And there *are* lots of errors: just not in your case
<abu[m]> like '"" can't mail'
<abu[m]> I'll send you the code by PM
<abu[m]> The sending is in line 71
<abu[m]> (for To *Mailings ...
<abu[m]> The final send check is:
<abu[m]> (when (and (out *Sock (prinl "DATA\r")) (pre? "354 " (in *Sock (line T))))
<abu[m]> So if this fails, the mail is not sent
<tankf33der> Did you check mta’s logs or you about it when you tell no errors
<abu[m]> There is no MTA (?)
<abu[m]> The Pil program I sent you *is* the MTA ;)
<abu[m]> Before the actual sending in line 71 is all that "HELO" handshake with my provider
<abu[m]> This must work, as the other mails got through
<abu[m]> I will put another diagnostics after the "DATA" line. Perhaps this gives a clue
<tankf33der> You should create another list to play with
<tankf33der> and subscribe me manually
<abu[m]> Too tedious. Needs another mail address etc.
<tankf33der> tell me when send another reply to test message
<abu[m]> sure
<abu[m]> OK, please send
<tankf33der> Sent
<abu[m]> arrived
<abu[m]> I think it was successfully relayed to my provider:
<abu[m]> "250 2.0.0 OK queued with id h63410z377OrAmc"
<abu[m]> So the fault is not on my side, right?
<abu[m]> But interesting!
<abu[m]> There is a mail back from the mailer daemon
<abu[m]> It list all recipients, or at least many
<abu[m]> and it says that it failed due to error 550, accept refused
<abu[m]> So the destinations refuse to accept the mail
<abu[m]> The error messages from all those destination mail servers are like "Message rejected per DMARC policy by"
<abu[m]> I think it has to do with the fact that the sender of the mails is "picolisp@..." and not "tankf33der@..."
<abu[m]> What to do?
<abu[m]> Around here:
<abu[m]> (prinl "From: " (or *Name *From) "\r")
<abu[m]> (prinl "Sender: " *MailingList "\r")
<abu[m]> (prinl "Reply-To: " *MailingList "\r")
<abu[m]> Should this be changed?
<abu[m]> The problem seems the first line, the "From: "
<tankf33der> Unknown
<abu[m]> Strato wants here picolisp@... instead of tankf33der@...
<tankf33der> How it works with another users?! :/
<abu[m]> But what is the "DMARC policy by"?
<abu[m]> I HATE e-mails
<tankf33der> I do not know about dmarc
<abu[m]> It works with other users because they do not use
<tankf33der> i am just using service
<abu[m]> I have also no idea what DMARC is
<tankf33der> Afk
<abu[m]> But in some of the responses I see "Please use your own Strato E-Mail Adress instead of"
<abu[m]> the "own" address would be picolisp@...
<abu[m]> The latter I use in Sender: and in Reply-To:
<abu[m]> but From: is tankf33der
<tankf33der> My mail client of course have full email string
<abu[m]> Your client is not the problem I thinnk
<abu[m]> The problem are the three header lines
<abu[m]> From, Sender and Reply-To
<abu[m]> Sender and Reply are "picolisp"
<abu[m]> From is you
<abu[m]> But the errors complain that Sender should be you too
<abu[m]> no
<abu[m]> Sender should be "picolisp" too
<abu[m]> This is not good I think
<abu[m]> So I don't know what would be the correct header
<abu[m]> "DMARC is the best protection you can get against email spoofing"
<abu[m]> So I understand DMARC operates on "From:"
<abu[m]> What if I exchange "From:" and "Sender:"?
<abu[m]> Then the mail is not from you but from the list. "Reply-To:" remains the list. And "Sender:" is you.
<abu[m]> I'm sure then your case would work, but are there other implications?
<abu[m]> Should we try?
<abu[m]> I exchanged "From:" and "Sender:" now
<abu[m]> Please try again!
<abu[m]> I sent another test mail
<abu[m]> For me it still works. I can also Reply normally.
<abu[m]> Mail archive received it too
<abu[m]> Let's keep it this way? tankf33der: Can you test again?
theruran has joined #picolisp
<tankf33der> Sent
seninha has joined #picolisp
<abu[m]> Received
<abu[m]> And I see the arrival of a second mail on the server
<abu[m]> Should be propagated in 4 minutes
<abu[m]> Got it
<abu[m]> BUT: I think the current solution is not good
<abu[m]> At least here in mutt I don't see the original sender of the mail any longer
<abu[m]> Both From an To are the list now
<abu[m]> Only if I look at the full headers I see "Sender: Mike <>"
<abu[m]> Not usable for a mailing list :(
<abu[m]> Shall I revert?
<tankf33der> I do not know
<abu[m]> Another idea: I can put an artificial "From:" line on top of the mail body
<tankf33der> Iikc from should first line in any email
<abu[m]> Normally From: is only in the header, not in the mail body
<tankf33der> Aaa
<tankf33der> Mail archive full of picolisp as from emails
<abu[m]> Yes, here it is a problem too
<abu[m]> Not a good idea to exchange Sender and From
<tankf33der> this is not then
<tankf33der> this is not ok then
<abu[m]> But DMARC looks at From:
<abu[m]> Dilemma
<abu[m]> I better revert now
<abu[m]> Done
<abu[m]> So, sorry, you cannot send mails again 😭
<abu[m]> It says: "I believe that DMARC is broken by design ..."
<abu[m]> "Lists should keep the From address, the Subject, and the Message totally unchanged. They should add a Sender header to indicate their relay role"
<abu[m]> That's in fact what I do
<abu[m]> It also says:"It is reasonable nowadays to require that mailing list users whose domains use DMARC also enable DKIM"
<abu[m]> tankf33der: Could it be that you have DMARC enabled but not DKIM?
<abu[m]> I don't know what DKIM is
<abu[m]> but it seems it works well only with both together
<tankf33der> disroot is just email service, this is not my host
<abu[m]> Yeah, just like Strato here for me
<abu[m]> Many mailing lists seem to have this From/DMARC problem, but I don't understand how to solve it
<abu[m]> afp
<abu[m]> We should kill the mailing list and move all to Matrix instead ☺
Iacob has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
Iacob has joined #picolisp