I would argue "broken, but tolerable based on the use of SES in the middle".
The From: address should be the sender. The Reply-To: address should be the list. The way the headers are now you cannot see the email address of the sender at all. This is wrong, but I'm not sure what they can do about it with the way it is currently architected. SES being in the middle here is the problem. SES requires a lot of specific items to ensure that it isn't used to send anonymous spam. The most aggressive one being the requirement that each and every from address is verified on their amazon account. And worse, it expects the capitalization of those from addresses never to change, and so on. SES in the middle isn't the right architecture choice, but apparently it was necessary for some reason. I'm expecting the realization that SES is actually charging per-message and for data transfer to lead to SES being pulled out of the equation one way or another. I have dug some and I sure don't see any way around the SES pricing... -forrest On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Seth Mattinen via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9/16/14, 8:49 PM, Paul McCall via Af wrote: > >> At this point though, to characterize the list as "broken" is a bit >> harsh, IMO >> > > > I don't think I'm being harsh. The headers on this new list are jumbled up > in a way that's contrary to generally accepted mailing list behavior. As a > technical person it's plain broken; how clients interpret the combination > of headers with List-* headers to pretty-print things for the end user is > not an indication of "working". > > The yardstick for "fixed" vs. "broken" should not be how things appear on > the surface, but found in the headers. The References aren't working to > thread. The "From" header is wrong. The envelope sender isn't the list > manager. But if everyone accepts it then whatever, I won't waste my energy. > > ~Seth >
