On Sat, Sep 01, 2018 at 06:15:27PM +0200, Jaromil wrote: > > dear Jochen, > > > On Sat, 01 Sep 2018, J. Fahrner wrote: > > > my spam blocking rules don't allow a reply-to address to freemail > > addresses. Today I received a message from this list with a > > gmail.com replyto address (which was rejected). I'm wondering why > > this list allows replyto addresses which contain other addresses > > than this list. That makes no sense to me. Replies to list messages > > should always go to the list. > > I second your concern. > > tl;dr - help! > > long-ish story: > > We are currently running Mailmain 2 for this and other lists.dyne.org > and there are somehow long standing problems calling for maintainance, > one of them being the infamous lurker web-archiver bug which makes > most emails disappear from the web. >
I promised to have a look at the lurker issue, but haven't had time to do that. It's in my todo-list, but anyvody willing to help is welcome :) > Said that, knowing an intervention to fix all this will be soon > planned, I wonder if you or anyone else on this list has enough > experience with Mailman to indicate if we can change its setup to > somehow fix this behavior you mention. Reply-To: is not something that a mailing-list manager should be concerned with nowadays, and is surely something a mailing list server should not mangle with. The reason is that there is no right way of treating Reply-To: without upsetting a large fraction of users. The classical reads about this topic are reported below: http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-harmful.html http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-useful.html The truth is that nowadays any reasonable MUA should only use the List-* headers to manage sending to the mailing list (no need to say that mutt does that ;P). My very humble opinion on the topic is that Reply-To: munging is useless, unprincipled, and upsetting. The sender decides what they want the SMTP headers to look like, and nobody should interfere with that, and certainly not a mailining list manager. The recipient retains the freedom to ignore those headers altogether. And they lived happily ever after. > > Also appreciated if anyone has enough knowledge of Mailman 3, which > seems to me has done quite some progress. If we should upgrade to that > alltogether by making this effort and if yes then what settings are to > be preferred to avoid the situation you mention and other situations - > if it is possible at all. > I will have a look at Mailman 3, but the Reply-To: thing is not a matter of mechanism (which has existed in Mailman for as long as I can remember, i.e. about A.D. 1999), but of policy. > I am aware this may be mostly a client setting issue, however we are > committed to facilitate as much as possible netiquette-aligned > behaviors here - yet I second Anthony on this, without fiddling too > much with headers server-side. > IMHO, Reply-To: has nothing to do with netiquette. SMTP servers should mangle messages only to the extent required to provide the service they provide. Which normally means, no mangling at all. HND KatolaZ -- [ ~.,_ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ - Devuan -- Freaknet Medialab ] [ "+. katolaz [at] freaknet.org --- katolaz [at] yahoo.it ] [ @) http://kalos.mine.nu --- Devuan GNU + Linux User ] [ @@) http://maths.qmul.ac.uk/~vnicosia -- GPG: 0B5F062F ] [ (@@@) Twitter: @KatolaZ - skype: katolaz -- github: KatolaZ ]
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
