Andrew Hodgson writes: > The question is: Do many listadmins get similar questions, and is > there any merit for requesting that Mailman uses the list address > only in the Sender header?
I've never seen it on my lists ;-), but it's definitely a FAQ. I'm opposed to putting the list address in the Sender field as a matter of principle. I'd want to see LIST-owner there, but LIST-bounces isn't a bad compromise. The idea is that the From field presents the author(s) of the content, while the Sender field is the agent who actually handles the mail. Think "boss" and "secretary". So suppose you get a memo signed "The Boss/ts" (ts = the secretary). If you want to explain to the boss why you'd like to do things a little bit differently, you write a reply to the boss. But if an attachment was missing, you don't bother the boss (unless you want to get the secretary in trouble :-), you get in touch with the secretary. From/Sender is supposed to work the same way. Since Mailman can and does strip attachments and HTML (depending on configuration), having Sender be a list manager address is useful. This usage is an Internet standard (STD 11) going back decades (to RFC 724 of May 12, 1977, to be precise). To be honest, that's exactly what "on behalf of" means, anyway, so I don't understand why there's a problem here unless Outlook defaults to reply-to-Sender rather than reply-to-From. However, Mailman is a Python shop, so practicality beats purity. If there really are that many users who have this problem, I'd personally be happy enough with defaulting to the list-post address and an option to set ti to something RFC-conforming. ------------------------------------------------------ Mailman-Users mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
