On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 3:27 AM, Keith Herron <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Platonides, > > Please see my comments inline below :) > > > What will be the behavior when a final user presses reply to one of > those emails from the list? > > This would result in multiple addresses in the Reply-to: header like this: > > Reply-to: [email protected], [email protected] > > Pressing reply should then open a message with both addresses in the To: > field. > > > Should a bofh enable the reject option, will the rejection message > properly explain that «they are sending an email to a public mailing list > and their domain is configured to not allow that, and should they have any > issue to complain to their email provider»? > > If desired dmarc_moderation_notice can bet set on a per-list basis to > explain why the message was rejected. > > > Quite sad, but it's actually what everybody should be doing instead of > working around it by overwriting the author of the message with the sender > and clobbering the Reply-to (cf. rfc 5322 section 3.6.2). > > (and leaving everyone else with badly emails) > > > > Does it at least leave a pattern that allows a faithful reconstruction? > > This will not change the from addresses displayed in archives and unless > you have a static contact book entry for the list address the sender name > should appear in the thread as “First Last via list". > Hmm, I thought the mailman archive was also affected. If by archives you mean the received emails in your MUA, keeping the name (provided by the user!) is not "all the user cares about". For instance, this thread started with a post by someone signign as Keith Herron. I don't think I came accross that user before* However, an email from «Keith Herron <[email protected]>» is quite distinct than an email from «Keith Herron via Announcements for mailing list admins» And of course, such munging breaks basic features like «search all emails received from this user (and only those from this user)» * Probably because you joined about two months ago ;) https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Staff_and_contractors&diff=111154&oldid=111137 This is probably a sidestep, though. By «Does it at least leave a pattern that allows a faithful reconstruction?» I meant, «Is there an algorithmic way to get back the unmunged message?» I see for instance that Google and Yahoo groups leave a X-Original-From: header that could be used. > Could deliveries to the gmane archive be exempted? > > I’m not sure about gmane, but in this case it might be more > straightforward to reject DMARC senders and avoid inconsistencies between > archives. > Well, rejecting posts from senders using a strict DMARC policy would of course solve the munging issue. Best regards
_______________________________________________ Listadmins mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/listadmins
