| === chihchun_afk is now known as chihchun | ||
| === santa is now known as Guest5042 | ||
| === chihchun is now known as chihchun_afk | ||
| === _salem is now known as salem_ | ||
| juliank | Anybody here? 3 days ago I mentioned that I only received the initial email and the added bug tracker watch for bug 1657440 - obviously SPF checks fail on that, but I'm not sure if that alone is the reason they were dropped. | 13:11 |
|---|---|---|
| ubot5 | bug 1657440 in apt (Ubuntu Yakkety) "apt won't redownload Release.gpg after inconsistent cache updates made while UCA is being updated" [Undecided,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1657440 | 13:11 |
| juliank | Should I open a bug against launchpad? | 13:13 |
| juliank | It would really be awesome if someone could look into these missing notifications, as missing bug comments or maybe even bugs (?) is not a good thing | 13:17 |
| === JanC_ is now known as JanC | ||
| === elmo_ is now known as elmo | ||
| === heroux_ is now known as heroux | ||
| wgrant | juliank: SPF wouldn't fail (the envelope sender is canonical.com in all cases), but user domains with DMARC p=reject policies may be problematic. Can you file a question on LP with details about missed messages? | 22:56 |
| juliank | wgrant: Well, the first comment I don't have was from canonical.com too :) But sure, yes, I can do that. | 22:57 |
| juliank | Maybe Google was annoyed by launchpad emails and decided to reject them for a day ... | 22:58 |
| juliank | Oh, just noticed the "Alberto Salvia Novella (es20490446e) 6 hours ago" importance changes there | 22:59 |
| juliank | wgrant: https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/458337 | 23:01 |
| wgrant | juliank: SPF doesn't cover From, just the envelope sender | 23:01 |
| juliank | wgrant: Yes, I know | 23:01 |
| wgrant | DMARC is the first thing to go ridiculously overboard and consider From and break mailing lists. | 23:01 |
| juliank | I also seem to have received my first comment, but not my second one :/ | 23:02 |
| wgrant | That's... odd. | 23:02 |
| wgrant | I guess Gmail still doesn't let you debug this at all? | 23:02 |
| wgrant | It's been a long time since I used it... | 23:02 |
| juliank | No chance to debug anything. | 23:02 |
| juliank | If it was bounced someone with access to bounces@canonical.com should have the answer | 23:03 |
| juliank | wgrant: Well, Google's only analysis tool shows that DMARC failed | 23:04 |
| juliank | f0r the initial message | 23:04 |
| juliank | dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=canonical.com | 23:04 |
| juliank | This was From: Andreas Hasenack <andreas@canonical.com> | 23:04 |
| juliank | same for my comment | 23:05 |
| juliank | wgrant: My comment: https://paste.ubuntu.com/23991480/ | 23:05 |
| juliank | wgrant: Initial email: https://paste.ubuntu.com/23991482/ | 23:06 |
| juliank | Both contain all headers as google added them (Authentication-Results, SPF-Received, and friends) | 23:06 |
| juliank | But really, gmail also sometimes decides something is too spam and bounces it | 23:07 |
| juliank | and I have no insight in what was bounced | 23:08 |
| juliank | I wonder why the canonical.com email fails dmarc, I see no dmarc records | 23:10 |
| juliank | and if a source domain does not do dmarc, gmail does not show anything about dmarc :/ | 23:10 |
| juliank | I can play with more things in 24 hours by directing everything via my bounce-catching email | 23:16 |
| wgrant | juliank: dmarc=fail with p=NONE is meaningless, though. | 23:34 |
| wgrant | p is the action. | 23:34 |
| juliank | That's all I have :( | 23:34 |
| wgrant | Oh, missed your second last line, huh. | 23:34 |
| wgrant | So it thinks it has DMARC even though it doesn't? | 23:35 |
| wgrant | weird... | 23:35 |
| wgrant | Oh there is a DMARC record for canonical.com | 23:36 |
| wgrant | But it is indeed p=none | 23:36 |
| juliank | wgrant: Ah. You have to search for _dmarc - that's why I did not see it | 23:38 |
| juliank | wgrant: But the non-comments (bug tracker add at least) come from 1657440@bugs.launchpad.net anyway, and the one I got does not have a DMARC failure, as launchpad has no DMARC policy | 23:45 |
| wgrant | juliank: Emails should be From the actor's email address, unless the email address is hidden in which case the @bugs.launchpad.net one is used. | 23:55 |
| wgrant | Even for bug tracker links | 23:55 |
| juliank | ah | 23:55 |
| juliank | well, in the actuin I received, it was hidden | 23:55 |
| juliank | But I did not seem to have gotten a notification for vej adding the tags | 23:56 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!