I am pretty sure that our list automatically strips MIME-formatted messages. Basically we have a choice. We can keep that setting and appease people who don't want formatted stuff, or we can eliminate it and appease people who don't want to use plain text. My opinion is that eliminating the option is probably the better choice, because it would be a compromise between having a traditional list vs. having a configuration which would likely not work for some (especially younger) members.
Basically we have a choice. We can keep that setting and appease people who don't want formatted stuff, or we can eliminate it and appease people who don't want to use plain text.
What clients are people using that aren't displaying text+HTML multipart messages? I forwarded Tony's message on to an account I check with alpine -- it displays fine there. Thanks, Jonathan
iOS and Mac Mail here. David Sent from my iPhone On Nov 4, 2015, at 6:42 PM, Evan Koblentz via vcf-midatlantic <vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> wrote:
I forwarded Tony's message on to an account I check with alpine -- it displays fine there.
Oh! Then I'm wrong. (Actually, that should have been obvious to me. Sorry.)
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Evan Koblentz via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> wrote:
I am pretty sure that our list automatically strips MIME-formatted messages.
Basically we have a choice. We can keep that setting and appease people who don't want formatted stuff, or we can eliminate it and appease people who don't want to use plain text.
My opinion is that eliminating the option is probably the better choice, because it would be a compromise between having a traditional list vs. having a configuration which would likely not work for some (especially younger) members.
I vote for the stripping of MIME. I may be young-ISH, but I really do prefer plain-text emails, whenever possible. - Alex
I vote for the stripping of MIME
Jon says I am wrong about the (ahem) stripping.
I may be young-ISH, but I really do prefer plain-text emails, whenever possible.
I meant young in the sense of expanding our hobby. (Frankly it awes me that so many people in our hobby and in this group specifically are 20s/30s yet deeply into minis and stuff.)
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Evan Koblentz via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> wrote:
I vote for the stripping of MIME
Jon says I am wrong about the (ahem) stripping.
I may be young-ISH, but I really do prefer plain-text emails, whenever possible.
I meant young in the sense of expanding our hobby. (Frankly it awes me that so many people in our hobby and in this group specifically are 20s/30s yet deeply into minis and stuff.)
It is working well now, can we keep as is? -- Bill
Still don't think it's fixed. I'd ask the host to look into problems with the SPF record. About a third of the emails seem to be marked as softfail. http://serverfault.com/questions/586461/how-to-resolve-problems-with-spf-sof... On Nov 4, 2015 6:23 PM, "Evan Koblentz via vcf-midatlantic" < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> wrote:
It is working well now, can we keep as is?
That would be nice!
http://serverfault.com/questions/586461/how-to-resolve-problems-with-spf-sof... On Nov 4, 2015 6:23 PM, "Evan Koblentz via vcf-midatlantic" < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> wrote:
It is working well now, can we keep as is?
That would be nice!
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 7:53 PM, Kyle Owen via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> wrote:
Still don't think it's fixed. I'd ask the host to look into problems with the SPF record. About a third of the emails seem to be marked as softfail.
where do you see "softfail" in your email program? For a brief person I had some poss spam warnings but gmail at least figured out they were not spam and the warnings went away. Point - how can MIME be the cause? -- Bill
I'm just reading the original source, where it says it in the header: Delivered-To: kylevowen@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.25.40 with SMTP id z8csp91550lbf; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 16:17:37 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.202.212 with SMTP id x203mr4606697qha.99.1446682657233; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 16:17:37 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: <vcf-midatlantic-bounces@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> Received: from www.mailmanlists.us ([2604:3400:dc1:43:216:3eff:fe36:d305]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id v129si2644061qka.16.2015.11.04.16.17.36; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 16:17:37 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning vcf-midatlantic-bounces@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org does not designate 2604:3400:dc1:43:216:3eff:fe36:d305 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:3400:dc1:43:216:3eff:fe36:d305; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning vcf-midatlantic-bounces@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org does not designate 2604:3400:dc1:43:216:3eff:fe36:d305 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=vcf-midatlantic-bounces@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org; dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@gmail.com Received: from [173.246.104.112] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by www.mailmanlists.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id F07542E5ED; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 01:17:35 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: www.mailmanlists.us; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=xQDQZmbf; dkim-atps=neutral X-Original-To: vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org [snip]
Received: from www.mailmanlists.us ([2604:3400:dc1:43:216:3eff:fe36:d305]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id v129si2644061qka.16.2015.11.04.16.17.36; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 16:17:37 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning vcf-midatlantic-bounces@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org does not designate 2604:3400:dc1:43:216:3eff:fe36:d305 as permitted sender)
Looks like you need an `ip6:` IPv6 record for SPF. I'm guessing you should put a v6 network/prefix in there, since www.mailmanlists.us seems to be in the middle of an existing range. IPv6...it's out there...and people are using it! Thanks, Jonathan
Yes and Google just recently changed something with regards to mail and ipv6. I had to add an ipv6 entry to my SPF record last week on my domain because google started bouncing stuff, where my ipv4 only SPF had been allowing me to send stuff to people on gmail flawlessly for years. In the last year or so, when setting up new servers, I've been setting up AAAA records and making sure services bind to both 4 and 6 addresses -- it's actually quite interesting to see how much traffic actually flows over ipv6. --Jason On 11/04/2015 05:49 PM, Systems Glitch via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
Received: from www.mailmanlists.us ([2604:3400:dc1:43:216:3eff:fe36:d305]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id v129si2644061qka.16.2015.11.04.16.17.36; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 16:17:37 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning vcf-midatlantic-bounces@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org does not designate 2604:3400:dc1:43:216:3eff:fe36:d305 as permitted sender) Looks like you need an `ip6:` IPv6 record for SPF. I'm guessing you should put a v6 network/prefix in there, since www.mailmanlists.us seems to be in the middle of an existing range.
IPv6...it's out there...and people are using it!
Thanks, Jonathan
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Jason Howe via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
Yes and Google just recently changed something with regards to mail and ipv6. I had to add an ipv6 entry to my SPF record last week on my domain because google started bouncing stuff, where my ipv4 only SPF had been allowing me to send stuff to people on gmail flawlessly for years.
In the last year or so, when setting up new servers, I've been setting up AAAA records and making sure services bind to both 4 and 6 addresses -- it's actually quite interesting to see how much traffic actually flows over ipv6.
Like the majority of this email!
--Jason
On 11/04/2015 05:49 PM, Systems Glitch via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
Received: from www.mailmanlists.us ([2604:3400:dc1:43:216:3eff:fe36:d305]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id v129si2644061qka.16.2015.11.04.16.17.36; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 16:17:37 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning vcf-midatlantic-bounces@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org does not designate 2604:3400:dc1:43:216:3eff:fe36:d305 as permitted sender) Looks like you need an `ip6:` IPv6 record for SPF. I'm guessing you should put a v6 network/prefix in there, since www.mailmanlists.us seems to be in the middle of an existing range.
IPv6...it's out there...and people are using it!
Thanks, Jonathan
-- Cory Smelosky http://gewt.net Personal stuff http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
On Nov 4, 2015, at 6:14 PM, Evan Koblentz via vcf-midatlantic <vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> wrote:
I am pretty sure that our list automatically strips MIME-formatted messages.
Basically we have a choice. We can keep that setting and appease people who don't want formatted stuff, or we can eliminate it and appease people who don't want to use plain text.
My opinion is that eliminating the option is probably the better choice, because it would be a compromise between having a traditional list vs. having a configuration which would likely not work for some (especially younger) members.
I'd like to know how cctalk does it; everything comes through in nicely-formatted plain text there. Maybe ask Jay West? - Dave
Also maybe the guys at SIMH@trailing-edge.com may be able to help. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 4, 2015, at 9:50 PM, william degnan via vcf-midatlantic <vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> wrote:
I'd like to know how cctalk does it; everything comes through in nicely-formatted plain text there. Maybe ask Jay West?
Good idea. I will.
Kyle, thanks yes I see what you mean. Gmail posts a warning about the mail sender violating mail guidelines
B B
participants (10)
-
Cory Smelosky -
David Riley -
David Ryskalczyk -
Evan Koblentz -
J. Alexander Jacocks -
Jason Howe -
Kyle Owen -
Richard Cini -
Systems Glitch -
william degnan