I'm with Al Iverson on this one. Most if not all of the lists to which I subscribe are discussion lists. I'm used to the (very) old behavior of discussion lists which automatically set replies to the list, and I dislike mailing list managers that default my reply to the original poster - it's supposed to be a discussion. Sure there are other uses for mailing list software, but in my own list use I'd say 99% or more of my responses are to the various lists.
Since I'm late to this conversation, I'll add two cents here on MLM behavior. If MLM software is altering the contents of a message, then in authentication terms the original author is no longer the author of the message - the MLM is responsible for the modified message body (DKIM). In authorization terms, the MLM system is also the originating mail server (SPF). So from a strict security perspective, the MLM software IMHO *should* be claiming ownership of these messages (in a user-visible way, i.e. the From field). Obviously, convenience and security aren't always the best of friends, but there are many ways to implement convenience that don't ignore security. There are fewer ways (read: none) to implement security that accommodate every implementation of convenience. If we want to secure our email addresses, we're going to have to work a bit for it. -- Les Barstow -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 1:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] Hey, Yahoo, you just broke my church mailing list On 4/11/2014 10:52 AM, Peter Blair wrote: > At 09 April, 2014 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. > > +1 This line of thinking has me confused. It presumes that there should be no 'side' conversations. Responses that /should/ be private vary from nasty screeds to initiating detailed exploration of obscure minutae that would be a burden to the other list participants. So it can spare at least one participant from embarassment or the entire list from what effectively would be noise. 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) _______________________________________________ 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)
