search

mysociety / writetothem

Write to your MP, MEP, & other elected representatives.
https://www.writetothem.com
Other
54 stars 11 forks source link

Re-evaluate use of VERPed addresses in from fields #193

Open jacksonj04 opened 10 years ago

jacksonj04 commented 10 years ago

Currently, on delivery to a rep, we see if the sender is DMARC p=reject and if so use VERP for the From, with the sender in Reply-To. This is fine, unless the rep has a bad client and replies to the From, when we then forward that on (verbatim) to the sender.

However, if the rep also has strict DMARC, that forwarding may then fail SPF/DMARC. We could change the VERP handler so that the reply-from-rep has its own VERP as with the original message, and then any bad-client reply to that is forwarded back to the rep (ie. full two-way proxying). Have asked @sagepe to investigate whether the system SRS handling could potentially be used here somehow.

MyfanwyNixon commented 8 years ago

I'm guessing that this is what has caused a problem with message ID 6eb454c333ca36462e7d. The bounceback reads:

SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data: host ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.com [66.102.1.27]: 550-5.7.1 Unauthenticated email from aim.com is not accepted due to domain's 550-5.7.1 DMARC policy. Please contact administrator of aim.com domain if this 550-5.7.1 was a legitimate mail. Please visit 550-5.7.1 https://support.google.com/mail/answer/2451690 to learn about DMARC 550 5.7.1 initiative. v12si21744060wjr.183 - gsmtp

MyfanwyNixon commented 8 years ago

See also message ID: 989c2103fe88c881c142

dracos commented 8 years ago

Those are both AOL/Yahoo domains. FMS does a DNS lookup, which should probably be copied here. That’s not to do with this ticket, which would be changing how VERP replies works. Have opened #289.

MyfanwyNixon commented 8 years ago

It's all Greek to me, but thanks!