>  > In particular, we don't include the original From: @domain because
>  > of goal #2 [in dmarc.py]. We use --- to imply that something is
>  > missing. Perhaps ellipsis would have been a better choice, but we
>  > didn't want anything that even hinted at a domain.
> OK, that makes some sense.  Here's goal #2:
>     # 2) the original From: address should not be in a comment or
> display
>     #    name in the new From: because it is claimed that multiple
> domains
>     #    in any fields in From: are indicative of spamminess.  This
> means
>     #    it should be in Reply-To: or Cc:.
> I don't recall there being documentation of this claim.  I certainly
> believe it happens at least occasionally (I know several mail admins
> who will implement any filter that might eliminate 1 or more spams in
> the next decade ;-).  But is it really a major problem?
> I'm coming around to the idea of a general format language for
> configuring various Mailman-generated texts with a bunch of standard
> codes (like strftime).  There are too many "minority" problems like
> the OP's (and I suspect "multiple addresses are spam" for that
> matter)
> for me to be comfortable ignoring the set, but on the other hand the
> number of options we'd have to provide to satisfy 1/10th of them
> would
> be insane, and unpopular with 99% of the folks considering changing
> the default.

“It is claimed that multiple domains in any fields in From: are
indicative for spamminess” is a rumour, which does not account for
real-world feasible use cases.

Since other MLMs have the option to include the full original-From:
address in the display-part of the From: header, mailman shall have
this option, too.

Mailman-Developers mailing list -- mailman-developers@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-developers-le...@python.org
Mailman FAQ: https://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3

Security Policy: https://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9

Reply via email to