Andrew Partan writes: > Until people figure out real ways of making DMARC work with forwrders > & mailing lists (see ietf-...@ietf.org for one place discussions > are going on), I think it useful to have more work-around hacks out > there so that people can experiment with them to see which ones > more-or-less work in different situations.
That's what they said about Reply-To munging, too. If people want to implement them themselves and try them out, heck, I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again. But I don't think *Mailman* should proactively implement RFC violations unless there's a clear and present danger, and then the violations should try to be minimal.[1] DMARC, since it causes denial of service to third parties, is such a clear and present danger. Here I interpret "minimal" to mean "try to avoid to adding to the set of RFC violations out there." I know it's tempting to imply that yahoo.com is an invalid domain, but it's not at all necessary given that substituting the list-post address is what Yahoo itself suggests. The original user is easily replied to via the Reply-To hack. Footnotes: [1] Retroactive implementation, such as "Reply-To munging", may be appropriate in response to customer demand. ------------------------------------------------------ Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
