On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Steve Atkins via dmarc-discuss < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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]> > > Smells like: From: Paypal Security [email protected] <[email protected]> Not sure it is a good idea.
_______________________________________________ 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)
