>I'd prefer: > > From: Foo list [Jane Smith] <[email protected]> > CC: Jane Smith <[email protected]>
Given that most MUAs these days don't show the e-mail address at all, it's hard to see why that would be better. >- violating the principle of least astonishment[1] (wait, the list operator >caused my >private reply to be routed through his mail-server?) You must know different users than I do. Most of them have no idea how their mail gets from them to their correspondents, and I don't recall any of them asking unless something screwed up and it got lost. A great deal of mail to various domains ends up at gmail, and they don't seem to have any trouble with that. Data point: I've been doing the dmail.fail rewrite for the better part of a year, I've had exactly one user ask what it was, and when I explained it was to get around some overeager filtering at large ISPs, they thought that was fine. R's, John PS: >1: Reply-To: appears to have become a third rail, I won't touch it. Oh, it's been a point of religious controversy for at least 20 years. I wouldn't touch it either, other than to note that adding a reply-to as a workaround to From: header workarounds rarely works the way you expect it to. _______________________________________________ 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)
