=== 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_ [13:11] 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] 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 [13:13] Should I open a bug against launchpad? [13:17] 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 === JanC_ is now known as JanC === elmo_ is now known as elmo === heroux_ is now known as heroux [22:56] 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] wgrant: Well, the first comment I don't have was from canonical.com too :) But sure, yes, I can do that. [22:58] Maybe Google was annoyed by launchpad emails and decided to reject them for a day ... [22:59] Oh, just noticed the "Alberto Salvia Novella (es20490446e) 6 hours ago" importance changes there [23:01] wgrant: https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/458337 [23:01] juliank: SPF doesn't cover From, just the envelope sender [23:01] wgrant: Yes, I know [23:01] DMARC is the first thing to go ridiculously overboard and consider From and break mailing lists. [23:02] I also seem to have received my first comment, but not my second one :/ [23:02] That's... odd. [23:02] I guess Gmail still doesn't let you debug this at all? [23:02] It's been a long time since I used it... [23:02] No chance to debug anything. [23:03] If it was bounced someone with access to bounces@canonical.com should have the answer [23:04] wgrant: Well, Google's only analysis tool shows that DMARC failed [23:04] f0r the initial message [23:04] dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=canonical.com [23:04] This was From: Andreas Hasenack [23:05] same for my comment [23:05] wgrant: My comment: https://paste.ubuntu.com/23991480/ [23:06] wgrant: Initial email: https://paste.ubuntu.com/23991482/ [23:06] Both contain all headers as google added them (Authentication-Results, SPF-Received, and friends) [23:07] But really, gmail also sometimes decides something is too spam and bounces it [23:08] and I have no insight in what was bounced [23:10] I wonder why the canonical.com email fails dmarc, I see no dmarc records [23:10] and if a source domain does not do dmarc, gmail does not show anything about dmarc :/ [23:16] I can play with more things in 24 hours by directing everything via my bounce-catching email [23:34] juliank: dmarc=fail with p=NONE is meaningless, though. [23:34] p is the action. [23:34] That's all I have :( [23:34] Oh, missed your second last line, huh. [23:35] So it thinks it has DMARC even though it doesn't? [23:35] weird... [23:36] Oh there is a DMARC record for canonical.com [23:36] But it is indeed p=none [23:38] wgrant: Ah. You have to search for _dmarc - that's why I did not see it [23:45] 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] 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] Even for bug tracker links [23:55] ah [23:55] well, in the actuin I received, it was hidden [23:56] But I did not seem to have gotten a notification for vej adding the tags