On 10/19/2017 09:14 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > > RFC 6377 - DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) and Mailing Lists, > disagrees with you. (RFC 6377 is also currently known as BCP 167.)
I am too tired at the moment to respond to your posts more completely. I may do so tomorrow. But I suggest that if you are going to quote RFCs that you understand the differences between Best Current Practice and Standards Track categories. Also, I don't disagree that there are issues between DKIM, DMARC and Mailing Lists that make seamless integration of these impossible without changing long standing norms and expectations for Mailing Lists. I also think Mailman (both 2.1 and 3) give you tools to do pretty much whatever you want in this vein except for changing the Message-ID: of the original post. Note that one of the biggest reasons for that is if the list copy has a different Message-ID: and some people receive and reply to a list copy and some receive a direct To: or Cc: and reply to that and people use MUAs that produce threaded views based on Message-ID:, References: and In-Reply-To: headers, threading can get pretty messed up. Finally, I think all we disagree on (as Steve implied in a post a day or two ago) is very arcane, small technical details, and while we may never come to agreement on these, I think we do agree that Mailman can operate in this environment in ways we think are satisfactory. -- 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