[12:35] <teward> cjwatson: do you need a blog post to supplement the May 20, 2020 one about bugs and DMARC complianc,e but for the code review bits?
[12:35] <teward> or is that just going to be considered "Done, no need to announce it"
[12:42] <cjwatson> teward: I probably wasn't going to, since the bugs one didn't cause any major issues that I remember
[12:43] <teward> well other than the singular whining about "Why can't you do XYZ" (and they don't understand that'll fail DMARC too)
[12:43] <teward> s/whining/concern/
[12:43] <cjwatson> Changing the name part wouldn't fail DMARC
[12:43] <teward> glad to see that the code review emails're becoming DMARC compliant though
[12:44] <cjwatson> Which is what that commenter was suggesting
[12:44] <teward> cjwatson: no, but the 'on behalf of' part is a Microsoft terminology meaning that "Sender" is one thing and "From" is another last I checked
[12:44] <cjwatson> Right, wouldn't have to use that specific wording
[12:44] <teward> which, breaks DMARC.
[12:44] <teward> at the headers level
[12:44] <teward> you can have the display name be anything, but it's still its own form of chaos :P
[12:44] <teward> still, glad to see things're working towards full compliance :)
[12:45] <teward> (now if only the lists were so compliant...)
[12:45] <cjwatson> Indeed, and thanks for the contribution there!
[12:45] <teward> *yeets self into the abyss*
[12:45] <teward> cjwatson: how much of the work did I do but not complete?  I saw your note that it was mostly based on my work and you fixed tests
[12:45] <cjwatson> If you've been paying close attention you may have noticed that we have some DKIM signing now too
[12:45] <teward> cjwatson: semi-close attention, been a little innundated at FT job with someone DoSing an application unintentionally
[12:45] <teward> (and breaking things hard)
[12:46] <teward> cjwatson: DKIM signing is fun though too xD
[12:46] <teward> well on the way to better email integrity (and DMARC!)
[12:46] <cjwatson> I tidied up headers a bit from your branch, but otherwise it was mostly fixing tests
[12:46] <cjwatson> I thought it best to put the user's display name back in
[12:46] <teward> makes sense to me.
[12:47] <teward> yeah my branch was unclean :P
[12:47] <cjwatson> The way it works now is that any email sent by LP with From: @launchpad.net or @*.launchpad.net should be DKIM-signed
[12:47] <cjwatson> (That was due to IS rather than me)
[12:48] <cjwatson> So there'll still be cases where we send with non-launchpad.net From:, but bugs and code review accounted for the vast majority of it I think
[14:25] <cjwatson> Looks like some kind of librarian outage, investigating
[14:27] <cjwatson> ceph backend seems to be down
[15:18] <cjwatson> Ceph is back, librarian is working fine again
[17:08] <sarnold> cjwatson: excellent py2 -> py3 blogpost :) thanks
[21:30] <cjwatson> sarnold: yw :)
[23:54] <teward> can I have a link to this said blog post?  I don't follow everyone unfortuantely :P
[23:54] <sarnold> teward: heya :) https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~cjwatson/blog/lp-python3.html