On 4/8/2014 9:36 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote:
On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 08:26 -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:
I agree that redacting the email address is the best of a bad bunch of
options, so that's what we'll be implementing.
Legitimate recipients of mailing list distributions will not be able to
use the Reply command, to respond to legitimate authors?
Correct. Like I said, the best of a bad bunch.
Breaking an essential capability for group discussion can't reasonably
be qualified as 'best' except best at being unacceptable.
In the early 1970s, email did not have a reply command. When it was
added, the nature of email usage changed fundamentally and almost
instantly. People could start having natural "conversation" via email,
because the mechanics of replying went down to zero effort.
That said, having thought about it a bit more, a slightly improved
version would be to add the sender's from address as a reply-to address,
if the list itself did not already have a reply-to configured.
The original specification and use of reply-to was simple and effective.
If we still had that world, your suggestion would work well. However
the overloading of reply-to that took place over the years has produced
MUAs that process the field erratically and often not very well.
Besides that, I'd expect the scenario you describe also to be useful to
bad actors...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
dmarc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
