Mark, On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 10:36 AM Mark Sapiro <m...@msapiro.net> wrote:
> On 1/29/21 5:38 AM, steve lund wrote: > > > > ...And everyone else who replied, yes, this does indeed look like a DMARC > > issue. I looked at the help pages and it looks like some things can be > > changed but from what I gather any changes would likely affect > > functionality for the users. > > > > I am a member of a different list that munged the FROM header to the list > > address with the down side that ALL replies had to go back through the > list > > even if it was specific to one individual. Not a great experience just to > > pick up a few members who had AOL email domains. > > > Is this a Mailman list? Both Mailman 2.1 and Mailman 3 take pains to > create Munged From messages which exhibit the same behavior for 'reply' > and 'reply-all' as non-munged messages. Here's what we say: > I don't know if it was a Mailman list or not. This was 2-3 years ago. I looked at a current list message and there is no indication of the list sender. Is there any way that I can send a query to get this information? > > # MAS: We need to do some things with the original From: if we've > munged > > # it for DMARC mitigation. We have goals for this process which are > > # not completely compatible, so we do the best we can. Our goals > are: > > # 1) as long as the list is not anonymous, the original From: address > > # should be obviously exposed, i.e. not just in a header that MUAs > > # don't display. > > # 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:. > > # 3) the behavior of an MUA doing a 'reply' or 'reply all' should be > > # consistent regardless of whether or not the From: is munged. > > # Goal 3) implies sometimes the original From: should be in Reply-To: > > # and sometimes in Cc:, and even so, this goal won't be achieved in > > # all cases with all MUAs. In cases of conflict, the above ordering > of > > # goals is priority order. > > I.e. preserving 'reply' and 'reply all' behavior is goal 3, but note > that "this goal won't be achieved in all cases with all MUAs". > > I.e. some MUAs that don't follow RFC recommendations for replying may > not reply appropriately. This is an MUA issue. Mailman is doing the best > it can. > > -- > 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 > To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ > Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 > Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 > Searchable Archives: > https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/ > ------------------------------------------------------ Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/
