On Apr 11, 2014, at 11:39 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Steve Atkins <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > It's not easy and it would take forever to reach ubiquity (ho! haha! guard! > turn! parry! dodge! spin!), but do we maybe need a specific way to direct > MUAs how to reply to a list? This would either be some heuristic like "To > reply to everyone (Reply All), use From; to reply to the author, use > Reply-To", or (gasp) a Reply-To-List header field, so there's no more > guessing? We could call it "Mail-Followup-To" or "List-Post". Or you could just hit "L" if you're using the right MUA. (Mostly orthogonal to our current conversation, though, as you cannot have an email - as defined by RFC5322 - From: header in mail sent from a domain that is sent from a DMARC p=reject domain that may have it's SMTP session originate at a server not authorized by the domain owner. You *cannot* fix that without changing one of 5322, dmarc-base or best practices for DMARC usage, and this doesn't do that.) Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ 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)
