On Apr 9, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Al Iverson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Barney Wolff <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Since I brought up SRS, may I point out that the SRS conversion >> includes a timestamp? So list operators need not, in fact, volunteer >> in perpetuity. And yes, that means that I can't click reply a year >> later and expect it to work. I can live with that. >> >> What's the alternative - being unable to reply at all? > > The alternative that I have personally implemented simply moves the > poster's email address to the reply-to header. > > I've explained what I've done here: > http://www.spamresource.com/2014/04/run-email-discussion-list-heres-how-to.html Another approach that could have been used if IESG had not thwarted deployment by demanding unique DKIM signatures in conjunction with third-party signature exceptions. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6541 The industry could have constructed a hash list of domains offering well administered third-party services. Instead, there is a growing list of poorly considered DMARC policy assertions causing a growing placement of mail in to spam folders. The IESG had no problem with SPF's potentially hundreds of DNS queries that might be made against otherwise uninvolved domains, in contrast to a single a ATPS query made to the authoritative domain. :^( Regards, Douglas Otis
_______________________________________________ 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)
