On 08/20/2015 10:13 AM, Richard wrote: > > However, what is really annoying is that it takes the original From: > line and puts it on the Reply-To: line and there's no way to turn this > off. > > I can't seem to find any explanation of why anyone thinks this is a > good idea. Maybe someone here can explain it to me.
It is there to make a "reply" and "reply-all" actions on posts with munged From: be as consistent as possible with the same action on a non-munged post, and to expose the poster's address in a header which is normally displayed by MUAs. > Below is why I think it's a bad idea. Why can't we encode the original > email address in a comment or quoted token on the From: line instead of > jamming it onto Reply-To? > > This is how I'm seeing mailing list messages now: > > To: Hal Finkel <hfin...@anl.gov> > cc: cfe-...@lists.llvm.org, > Commit Messages and Patches for LLVM <llvm-comm...@lists.llvm.org> > From: Lang Hames via cfe-dev <cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> > Reply-To: Lang Hames <lha...@gmail.com> > > The reply-to is going to the sender instead of the list, which is > making people cc the mailing list in order to get things to go back to > the list. And without munging, the same post would be > To: Hal Finkel <hfin...@anl.gov> > cc: cfe-...@lists.llvm.org, > Commit Messages and Patches for LLVM <llvm-comm...@lists.llvm.org> > From: Lang Hames <lha...@gmail.com> and reply would still go to the sender in From: > From what I read of DMARC, it's the munging of the From: > line that is needed in order to have messages pass the DMARC checks. > To me this makes sense -- the mailing list domain is sending the message > to the list and the appropriate domain checks need to be made against > the mailing list's domain, not the original author of the mailing list > message. And if you used dmarc_moderation_action instead of from_is_list to munge the from, only posts From: domains which publish DMARC reject (or optionally, quarantine) policies would be munged. The policy for gmail.com in 'none'. > What I'm not understanding is how DMARC is mandating that Reply-To: go > back to the original author, and not the mailing list, as is the > usualy convention: public conversations from a mailing list cycle back > to the mailing list by default and only fork into a private > conversation when specifically requested. If you want this behavior, set the list's reply_goes_to_list to "This list", then with current Mailman, the above becomes > To: Hal Finkel <hfin...@anl.gov> > cc: cfe-...@lists.llvm.org, > Commit Messages and Patches for LLVM <llvm-comm...@lists.llvm.org>, > Lang Hames <lha...@gmail.com> > From: Lang Hames via cfe-dev <cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> > Reply-To: <cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> Whether or not to munge Reply-To: to the list address is controversial and has been argued and flamed multiple times for years. See <http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/listreplyto.html>. -- Mark Sapiro <m...@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan ------------------------------------------------------ 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
