[NTLK] Receiving NewtonTalk messages... Gmail issue?

[IRENE Thomas]

someone hacked my account . i did not sign up for this
________________________________
From: NewtonTalk <newtontalk-bounces at newtontalk.net> on behalf of Andrei Chichak <newton at chichak.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 1:56 PM
To: newtontalk at newtontalk.net <newtontalk at newtontalk.net>
Subject: Re: [NTLK] Receiving NewtonTalk messages... Gmail issue?

The RTEMS RTOS group uses this same email distribution system, so I asked their support guy (me not knowing what I’m talking about wrt mail) and he suggested that Google will reject mail that does not have the

X-List-Administrivia

header filled in.
I noticed that the message that I received from Dennis Swaney did not have that field in the headers.

Just a thought.

Andrei from The Great White North

> On Feb 25, 2026, at 14:38, Dennis Swaney via NewtonTalk <newtontalk at newtontalk.net> wrote:
>
> Interestingly, this was sent to Junk in Mail 11.5. I went to Mail>View>Message>All Headers to see if I could figure out why and found these:
>
> Authentication-Results: ⁨bimi.icloud.com; bimi=skipped reason="insufficient dmarc"⁩
> Authentication-Results: ⁨arc.icloud.com; arc=none⁩
> Authentication-Results: ⁨dmarc.icloud.com; dmarc=fail header.from=falkensweb.com⁩
> Authentication-Results: ⁨dkim-verifier.icloud.com; dkim=fail reason="body hash did not verify" header.d=falkensweb.com header.i=@falkensweb.com header.b=ausFL9+O⁩
> Authentication-Results: ⁨spf.icloud.com; spf=pass (spf.icloud.com: domain of newtontalk-bounces at newtontalk.net designates 70.32.113.118 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=newtontalk-bounces at newtontalk.net⁩
> X-Content-Filtered-By: ⁨Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15⁩
> Return-Path: ⁨<newtontalk-bounces at newtontalk.net>⁩
> List-Help: ⁨<mailto:newtontalk-request at newtontalk.net?subject=help>⁩
> X-Proofpoint-Guid: ⁨_bUJDUeYmM3L4V8d9mZiP9amr8Ic22_0⁩
> X-Spam-Flag: ⁨yes⁩
> List-Id: ⁨NewtonTalk Mailing List <newtontalk.newtontalk.net>⁩
> X-Mailman-Version: ⁨2.1.15⁩
> X-Apple-Action: ⁨JUNK/Junk⁩
> ⁨<591F142B-1549-47B6-86FC-9116381C1DD1 at gmail.com>⁩ ⁨<D3B2CC9A-5B11-49B7-BFC2-410579966557 at mac.com>⁩ ⁨<DS0PR17MB70060B864ABAD5E363FB0EC8D669A at DS0PR17MB7006.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>⁩
> X-Suspected-Spam: ⁨true⁩
>
> I see the “insufficient dmarc” in the first and the 2 fails in the third and fourth lines so I’m wondering if that was the reason.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dennis B. Swaney
>
> Cogito Ergo Mac
>
>
>
>
>> On Feb 25, 2026, at 14:15, Tom <tom+newtontalk at falkensweb.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday, 21 February 2026 21:36:03 Greenwich Mean Time Paul Nuernberger wrote:
>>> Why I asked since those are normally handled via the mail service provider (postfix).
>>
>> Mailing lists are different, because they change the From: in "odd" ways, and old Mailman doesn't have any way of dealing with this, which tends to lead to things like DMARC breaking, which kills delivery.
>>
>> Only the very latest few Mailman v2 have work arounds. V3 is much better, but it's rip-and-replace rather than a fluid upgrade.
>>
>> I've been putting off the transition on the listserv I maintain for a few local groups !
>>
>> --
>> Tom
>> MessagePad 110, 2100 owner and, in case it's not obvious, geek.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> https://newtontalk.net
>> https://bitbang.social/@newtontalk
>> https://twitter.com/newtontalk
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> https://newtontalk.net
> https://bitbang.social/@newtontalk
> https://twitter.com/newtontalk

----------------------------------------------------------------------

https://newtontalk.net
https://bitbang.social/@newtontalk
https://twitter.com/newtontalk