> On Feb 10, 2016, at 6:37 PM, Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss > <[email protected]> wrote: > > John Levine wrote: > >> How is this different from everyone's favorite alleged mailing list >> solution? >> >> From: Foo list on behalf of Jane Smith <[email protected]> > ... >> PS: well, other than it's a little more explicit about where the >> responsibility lies > > That is the difference. > > I'd prefer: > > From: Foo list [Jane Smith] <[email protected]> > CC: Jane Smith <[email protected]> > > as "on behalf of" is a little too verbose but, yes, making sure that the > distinction remains generally visible without: > > - becoming extremely inconvenient (private replies become impossible because > the author's email address is missing), or > - violating the principle of least astonishment[1] (wait, the list operator > caused my private reply to be routed through his mail-server?)
Given that the important identifier is often the email address (“Which Bob are you?”, “Who is your employer?”) I think that any approach that intentionally obscures the actual author in that way is less than ideal. From: Steve Atkins [email protected] <[email protected]> or From: Steve Atkins [email protected] <[email protected]> or … (with Reply-To: to the actual author, ideally, but a Cc: is OK for those who have an irrational hatred of 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)
