XSF Discussion - 2021-03-07

  1. Stefan

    https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0004.html Has a version date in the future (2021-11-27)

  2. MattJ


  3. jonas’

    oh no

  4. mathieui

    XMPP is the future, now there is no denying it!

  5. Zash

    Is https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0234.html stuck in dark mode or is it just a local bug?

  6. Sam

    Zash: WOMM

  7. Zash


  8. MattJ

    Works on his machine

  9. edhelas

    mathieui next Humorous XEP could be Stanza over Time

  10. mdosch

    mrdoctorwho might be helpful there.

  11. croax

    emus: > Hi, is there anyone else (especially if there are any outlook users) that experience that the newsletter ends up in spam? Yes. No DKIM/SPF for sender domain.

  12. mdosch

    > Authentication-Results: mail.mdosch.de; dkim=pass header.d=mail4.tinyletterapp.com; spf=pass Works here.

  13. croax

    mdosch: mail.mdosch.de does not match nayego.net which is the domain of from field

  14. mdosch

    That's only envelope from, so literally anything can be written there. This is the one delivering > Received: from mail4.tinyletterapp.com (mail4.tinyletterapp.com []) by mail.mdosch.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA94B102CB3 for <spam-xmpp-org@mdosch.de>; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 17:35:53 +0100 (CET)

  15. mdosch

    But I'm not a Mailserver expert.

  16. croax

    AFAIK, DKIM does not require any link between e-mail content and Signer ID (SDID or AUID) but DMARC does (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7489.html#section-1) > The basic outline of DMARC is as follows: > [...] > 2. Receivers compare the RFC5322.From address in the mail to the SPF > and DKIM results, if present, and the DMARC policy in DNS. It is not requested to be DMARC compliant, especially when you don't advertise a DMARC policy, but this could trigger a *default policy* of receiver in case of DKIM domain mismatch. As SPF also (soft) fails, maybe the simplest thing would be first (or only) to include this relay server address in SPF policy record of sender.

  17. mathieui

    In XEP-0313, I think example 5 is an editing accident, as it has no relevance here (the paragraph above refers to example 4)

  18. mathieui

    (cc MattJ)

  19. MattJ

    Yep, I agree

  20. MattJ

    Oh, it's left over from the pubsub stuff (which is now separate)

  21. mathieui

    also, candid question after reading the text again, is there any client who does not use a queryid right now?

  22. emus

    Yeah, regarding croax and mdosch: Again I would be really happy to have something like an official email

  23. lovetox

    mathieui, how would that work without?

  24. mathieui

    lovetox, I guess you can just do some fuzzy matching based on message origin and internal message metadata

  25. mathieui

    but that looks like a recipe for disaster

  26. lovetox

    i mean yes technically it would work, but not beeing able to determine that messages you receive belong to a speciifc query seems bad