On Apr 11, 2014, at 7:24 AM, Steve Atkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 2014, at 12:59 AM, Patrick Peterson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Apr 9, 2014, at 6:41 AM, Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 4/9/2014 2:07 AM, Jonas Falck wrote: >>>> Gents, >>>> Perhaps this has been discussed, >>>> what about just rewrite "from" header to actual mailing list, so you don't >>>> violate DMARC, >>>> http://dmarc.org/faq.html#s_3 >>> >>> >>> What about recipients' not being able to reply directly to the original >>> author? >> I believe use of Reply-To header per RFC 5322 can be used to reply to author >> without use of From: header >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322 >> When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it >> indicates the address(es) to which the author of the message suggests >> that replies be sent. In the absence of the "Reply-To:" field, >> replies SHOULD by default be sent to the mailbox(es) specified in the >> "From:" field unless otherwise specified by the person composing the >> reply. >> >> For example, in the original email sent to this mailing list to which I’m >> replying, the message had the following headers: >> From: Dave Crocker <[email protected]> >> Reply-To: Dave Crocker <[email protected]> >> >> and when I hit reply, my response goes to >> Dave Crocker <[email protected]> > > That's how you expect it to work, sure. > > If the mailing list did something like replace the Reply-To with the From, > then replace the From with an email > address that isn't Dave's, that wouldn't work. > > If the mailing list instead replaced the Reply-To with the From only if there > wasn't already a Reply-To, I wouldn't > be able to search for "[email protected]" in my MUA to find it. > > All these mail headers have existing meanings and usage. If you remove the > content of one of them, however > you shuffle it around the others you're going to lose data and break some > usage. You can decide what to > break, but it's going to break something, sometimes. > > Bandaid responses aren't going to reliably fix the problem. That doesn't mean > it's impossible to fix, just that any > half-assed response that starts with "It's easy, you just need to ..." is > almost certainly wrong. Steve Apologies if it appeared I somehow was proposing a bandaid solution or any kind of solution at all. I didn’t mean to state or imply “It’s easy, you just need to …” and, given the nature of this list, I tried very hard to be specific and clear. Not sure if you really meant to state that I was proposing a bandaid or half-assed response or I’m reading too much into this. I merely wanted to clarify that the From: header does not dictate where the reply goes as that seemed to be missing. Wasn’t proposing a “solution” to this problem. And certainly don’t pretend to know what search MUAs’ support and whether people search for “Dave” or “Crocker” or “Dave Crocker” or "[email protected]” (although I tend to search for terms more like the former than the latter but can’t vouch for the other 6+ billion humans and their MUAs). I did a quick scan of a handful of mailing lists. Couldn’t see any that wouldn’t appear to work with leaving existing Reply-To in place or, in its absence, using the originated From as the Reply-To. Who knows if my initial scan is accurate or complete and I’m not implying an easy solution. But I think we’ll find out as some people modify their mailing list software. OK, I think I’ll go back to lurking for a few more years. pat
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ 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)
