Clearly we disagree on this and I don't think either of us will convince the other to change.
Mailman is trying to enable list owners to cope with DMARC in a way that minimizes negative impacts on lists and their subscribers. This is an evolving landscape. Some Microsoft services already are treating mail with the same address in From: and To: as suspicious which impacts mail currently DMARC mitigated by Mailman (as well as mail from anonymous lists). There are initiatives in progress to enable a mailing list to certify that outgoing mail passed DMARC when it was received by the list (Authenticated Received Chain <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft- ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol/> and <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft- ietf-dmarc-arc-usage/>). Thus, Mailman's handling of these things will likely change in the future. However, Mailman 2.1's DMARC mitigations are not likely to change, and for the near term at least Mailman 3 is not going to apply mitigatations to p=none mail unless the list owner chooses to apply mitigations to all mail (similar to from_is_list in MM 2.1). Mailman developers believe this is the correct approach and is RFC compliant. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Mailman Coders, which is subscribed to GNU Mailman. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1539384 Title: Non-blocking DMARC mitigations should also be done for p=none To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mailman/+bug/1539384/+subscriptions _______________________________________________ Mailman-coders mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-coders
