Hello, > There was a discussion of DKIM and mail list back last October [1]. > There was, and seems still is, an open mailman issue [2]. > > The Arch thread is informative, in particular around > content-transfer-encoding. Perhaps this is helpful. I believe I have read this thread already, but I will take a second look. As the mailman issue has yet to be resolved, there is not much which can be done here unfortunately. > Nope I don't mind -- 100% fine. I was just chucking at having the > privilege to serve as the example :) Well that is a relief. I am glad you got some enjoyment out of it :D > Just to say I may be out of date but I take ‘to spam’ to mean to send > spam rather than classing ham as spam and spam-bucketing the email. > :-) People understood what I meant, no need to nitpick it :) > as you can see in the headers, the MTA sending mails is not mailman > itself, but Postfix. Mailman hooks into postfix, it still has its own logic. Hence why DKIM is being broken during the processing of the email. > As I got your mail via IPv6, I think it's just the default behaviour > of Postfix: > > http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_address_preference > > As pointed out in the docs, setting ipv6 as preference is considered > unsafe. As an IPv6 enthusiast, I had set my Postfix to ipv6 myself > and remember some issues with broken MX. It seems most of my mail is delivered via IPv6, I have checked this but not with a large data set. But it seems most of the emails received from lists.archlinux.org is via IPv4, and the rare chance of IPv6 which is what I am finding is weird. https://serverfault.com/a/565123 This comment implies either Happy Eyeballs or a similar mechanism is being used by postfix. I have a friend who uses postfix and his mail server is configured dual stack and his mail ALWAYS uses IPv6, he hasn't set a preference either. Maybe Arch set IPv4 to be preferred and that is why? > But that note is rather confusing. The setting is describes as the > address family to try *first*. Not as the only address family to try > at all. So something in the docs is wrong. It's either the note or > the documented behavior. Maybe something to ask the postfix developers about, and possibly write a patch which better explains said mechanism? Thanks for the help! Take care, -- Polarian GPG signature: 0770E5312238C760 Website: https://polarian.dev JID/XMPP: polarian@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
pgppHyznVH8Fs.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
