2023-10-30 (Mon)

Gmail の SPF チェック

Office365 ベースのメールサーバから外部にメールを送ったところ、次のようなエラーメールが帰ってきた。

   ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<An address in Gmail>
    (reason: 550-5.7.26 The MAIL FROM domain [<My address>] has an SPF record with a hard)

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com.:
>>> DATA
<<< 550-5.7.26 The MAIL FROM domain [example.com] has an SPF record with a hard
<<< 550-5.7.26 fail policy (-all) but it fails to pass SPF checks with the ip:
<<< 550-5.7.26 [X.X.X.X]. To best protect our users from spam and phishing,
<<< 550-5.7.26 the message has been blocked. Please visit
<<< 550-5.7.26  https://support.google.com/mail/answer/81126#authentication

どうも宛先のサーバからさらに Gmail に転送する設定になっており、Gmail が、宛先偽装だと判断して SPF フィルタで弾いているらしい。 "Forwarding to Gmail account via Postfix: SPF record with a hard fail" の解決策を適用するようサーバ管理者に伝えてくれと受取人に連絡した。

ただ、説明を読んでも SRS (Sender Rewriting Scheme) が分かったような分からないような……

まず、"Actually, DMARC works fine with mailing lists"や"エンベロープ From と Return-Path と Errors-To と"を見て、メールヘッダ中の From のほかに Sender とか RFC5321.MailFrom (SMTP の開始時に送られるもので受け取ったサーバによって Return-Path に格納される) というものが関係してくることを知った。また、"SPF と転送の相性問題に対する解決案" や "SPF と転送の相性問題に対する解決策の紹介"も読んだ。 ただ、手元に簡単にテストできるサーバがないから、学ぶのは難しそう。

Science and outside world

Science "Archaeology society spars over publishing photos of Indigenous burial offerings"

Every right should get weaker and eventually expire as time passes. I don't think descendants should have exclusive rights to images of funeral objects that were buried hundred of years ago. For the same reason, I disagree with the idea of "cultural appropriation". They are public domain and everybody in the world should be able to use it freely. Of course, possession of physical objects (e.g. Egyptian statues) is a completely different story.

Nature "How to share data — not just equally, but equitably"

I am very disappointed to see this message coming from Nature. I don't like people taking scientific data hostage to leverage their personal/national/political goals. I know there are many inequalities but I strongly disagree with restricting access to scientific data to solve the issues.

"often not given the credit they are due": this can/should be punishable as scientific misconduct. No need to restrict access. "they are less likely to be relevant to that population": why is this a problem? Whenever a public dataset leads to another discovery, it is a win for science. Whether the discovery is relevant to the originating population does not matter. Another point I often see is that companies from richer countries take patents on discoveries based on raw data from your countries. Your country can counteract by not granting patents on such companies. Then your domestic companies can produce generic drugs, for example.

The bottom line is, do not bring personal/social/political/economic/national issues into science! I expect great scientists to work altruistically beyond such interests.

"RISC-V technology emerges as battleground in US-China tech war"

An example of political/commercial motivations trying to suppress open source technology.

Nature "‘In case I die, I need to publish this paper’: scientist who left the lab to fight in Ukraine"

"I don’t support the idea that science should be separate from war": Sorry, I don't agree. Although I condemn Russia for Ukraine invasion, I am against banning Russian scientists from international conferences and journals. That would only deepen the division. Requiring "declaration of neutrality" doesn't help at all. It only brings good Russian scientists into danger while bad Russian scientists can always sign it regardless of their real belief.

Unfortunately, there are many conflicts and abuses in the world. Should/Can scientific communities make moral decisions on every case? Clearly no.

During my adolescence, I was very shocked/disturbed/depressed to learn there are so many conflicting and mutually incompatible values in the world and no logic can tell which value is "better" than others. Science became my mental safe haven, because "right" and "wrong" can be rigorously, objectively determined by pure logic or by performing experiments against the physical universe. 20 years since then, I have learned that the process of science is full of human issues. The four news I posted today are typical examples of people bringing non-scientific issues (personal/political/social/national/commercial whatever) into science. These news make me very sad and unstable.

MotionCor3 and AreTomo2 source codes on GitHub! I got REALLY really happy to read this announcement on 3dem this morning. I have been getting very pessimistic with cryoEM (or science in general) with so many people refusing to disclose source codes and raw data prioritizing their personal/political/national interests over sharing. This is a big relief and silver lining for me.

読んだ