Re: Address munging vs. DKIM

Dmitry Alexandrov <[email protected]> Mon, 08 Jun 2020 19:59:49 +0300

Newsgroups	gmane.discuss
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Adam Sjøgren <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dmitry writes:
>> Adam Sjøgren <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Dmitry writes:
>> Unless you are (1) use a domain name you control for your mail address and (2) either (a) old-fashioned enough to configure you mail server not to sign outgoing mail or (b) tech-savvy enough to implement client-side DKIM for your NNTP client (I am not aware of any, that have that feature out of a box), whatever you post will systematically tend to end up in junk folders of subscribers, if not rejected outright.

> SPF will fail either way.

Thatʼs why I said _nothing_ about SPF.

>> I believe, you are aware of that sma-all refinement of ‘perfectly usable’, since you yourself seem to belong to the category 2b, do not you? :-).
>
> (I just set up Gnus to add DKIM-signature:-headers to my outgoing news articles the other day

‘Just’!

> I don't see how any NNTP client could do that out of the box

Do you mean, that was as easy as (setq gnus-...-dkim-key "...")?

Okay, perhaps, I overlooked it — Gnus is so featureful, that itʼs not surprising.  So we have _one_ NNTP client capable of doing that out of the box, then.

> I fail to see how address encryption makes the whole []/DKIM/DMARC thing any worse

By _forcing_ you to use the gateway for posting, of course.

(Worse than what, by the way?  There is absolutely nothing bad about signing your mail and with DKIM/DMARC in particular.  On the contrary: itʼs fairly effective in preventing anyone in the middle to tamper with your messages.  For instance, it had finally forced gnu.org to stop appending mail with annoying footers and subject tags across all the lists.  But _that_ indeed is entirely different issue.)

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 247 B)