[13:11] <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.
[13:13] <juliank> Should I open a bug against launchpad?
[13:17] <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
[22:56] <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?
[22:57] <juliank> wgrant: Well, the first comment I don't have was from canonical.com too :) But sure, yes, I can do that.
[22:58] <juliank> Maybe Google was annoyed by launchpad emails and decided to reject them for a day ...
[22:59] <juliank> Oh, just noticed the "Alberto Salvia Novella (es20490446e) 6 hours ago" importance changes there
[23:01] <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.
[23:02] <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.
[23:03] <juliank> If it was bounced someone with access to bounces@canonical.com should have the answer
[23:04] <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>
[23:05] <juliank> same for my comment
[23:05] <juliank> wgrant: My comment: https://paste.ubuntu.com/23991480/
[23:06] <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)
[23:07] <juliank> But really, gmail also sometimes decides something is too spam and bounces it
[23:08] <juliank> and I have no insight in what was bounced
[23:10] <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 :/
[23:16] <juliank> I can play with more things in 24 hours by directing everything via my bounce-catching email
[23:34] <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.
[23:35] <wgrant> So it thinks it has DMARC even though it doesn't?
[23:35] <wgrant> weird...
[23:36] <wgrant> Oh there is a DMARC record for canonical.com
[23:36] <wgrant> But it is indeed p=none
[23:38] <juliank> wgrant: Ah. You have to search for _dmarc - that's why I did not see it
[23:45] <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
[23:55] <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
[23:56] <juliank> But I did not seem to have gotten a notification for vej adding the tags