On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote: > On 4/9/2014 9:56 AM, Al Iverson wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> What about recipients' not being able to reply directly to the original >>> author? >> >> >> Personally I'd call that a feature if that were removed, I hate it >> when list messages are sent directly to a person instead of the list. >> But, knowing mine is not the only point of view on that, I found it >> trivial to set my reply-to header to contain both the list address and >> the original author's address. > > > Not only is your opinion of liking or disliking (or mine, or pretty much > anyone's on this list) the change nearly irrelevant, but so is our view of > the effort it takes for us to overcome the change. > > What matters is the world of 'average' Internet users. None of us is in > that demographic. > > In that world, they don't know about setting Reply-to and in many cases > won't have access to it. And in that world, the extra effort of having to > set the field is a /very/ large barrier.
I think you misunderstood me and went off on a tangent based on that misunderstanding. The average joe user doesn't have to change anything at all. They can continue to "reply all" and the functionality continues to work exactly as it did yesterday or in the 1970s, just like when you replied -- the TO will be populated with both the list and the person. Accidentally sending to the person when you meant to send to the list (or vice versa) is not new; I reject any assertion that operational complexity is increased. This really just reminds the open relaying mail server debate from 15+ years ago. A number of people made the point that mail servers were always open to relay and implied that thus, they should be that way forever. Some of us kept saying "but it's an abuse vector and I'm sick of dealing with it, so I'm blocking it." The response of "but this impacts a legitimate but rarely used use case" didn't sway me then, and it doesn't sway me now. I am of the opinion that "because this is how it worked for 30 years" is not a compelling reason to abandon attempts to further secure the email ecosystem, personally. Bringing it back to the "average user" demographic....what's a better long term solution? I've looked at the options. Others are saying that they've decided to lock all Yahoo users out of their lists. Force people to migrate to another mailbox provider. I don't want to have to teach my mom how to use Gmail instead of Yahoo. And what if that other webmail provider follows with a similar policy? Then I'm back to square one. For me, I believe that the better experience for the average user demographic is that I just deal with the complex stuff internally and keep the list working the way they're used to. I've already talked to a couple of commercial mailing list hosters, who have basically said the same thing. It goes without saying, their business model breaks if they have to tell clients this works great, except for Yahoo users. Regards, Al Iverson _______________________________________________ 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)
