=reject for .gov is
the goal, even if the people who designed DMARC didn't anticipate mailbox
hosters would be able to get there. EDUs and enterprises are starting to
follow suit.
Jesse
From: Alessandro Vesely
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: [mailop] Mailing list with From header
On 3/16/19 11:50 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
The issue with ARC is that it means nothing to small servers which don't
track domain reputation. They can easily add ARC stuff on forwarding,
but won't be able to evaluate incoming chains which may be spoofed.
Hence, small servers will have to
On Fri 15/Mar/2019 23:46:13 +0100 Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 2:54 PM Jesse Thompson via mailop wrote:
>>
>> As it stands now, these "conditional" issues are cropping up as unforeseen
>> or "poorly planned by IT".
Conditional rewriting seems to give a signal that
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 2:54 PM Jesse Thompson via mailop
wrote:
> On 3/13/2019 10:53 PM, Paul Gear via mailop wrote:
> > On 12/3/19 11:48 pm, Jesse Thompson via mailop wrote:
> >> On 3/12/2019 1:50 AM, Benjamin BILLON wrote:
> >>> So, the question is rather why Jesse and Michael's messages
On 15 Mar 2019, at 17:52, Jesse Thompson via mailop wrote:
Conditional rewriting seems to give a signal that 100% DMARC adoption
by
all domain is not the intended goal.
Rewriting "From" headers for domains that publish a p=none DMARC record
is needlessly user-hostile AND DMARC-hostile.
Of
On 3/13/2019 10:53 PM, Paul Gear via mailop wrote:
> On 12/3/19 11:48 pm, Jesse Thompson via mailop wrote:
>> On 3/12/2019 1:50 AM, Benjamin BILLON wrote:
>>> So, the question is rather why Jesse and Michael's messages contain a
>>> Reply-To: header, and not yours.
>>>
>>> (What will my contain?
On 12/3/19 11:48 pm, Jesse Thompson via mailop wrote:
> On 3/12/2019 1:50 AM, Benjamin BILLON wrote:
>> So, the question is rather why Jesse and Michael's messages contain a
>> Reply-To: header, and not yours.
>>
>> (What will my contain? Surprise surprise! Using Outlook)
> Well, splio.com
>?
>
> *From:* mailop *On Behalf Of *Jesse Thompson
> via mailop
> *Sent:* Monday, March 11, 2019 3:24 PM
> *To:* mailop@mailop.org
> *Subject:* [mailop] Mailing list with From header munging... and Outlook
>
> Hi all,
>
> We're making a push to get mailing l
On 3/12/2019 3:36 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Tue 12/Mar/2019 02:43:38 +0100 Neil Jenkins wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2019, at 09:26, Jesse Thompson via mailop wrote:
>>> When someone reply-alls to a munged message it only composes a message to
>>> the
>>> Reply-to and the Cc, but ignores the
On Tue 12/Mar/2019 02:43:38 +0100 Neil Jenkins wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2019, at 09:26, Jesse Thompson via mailop wrote:
>> When someone reply-alls to a munged message it only composes a message to the
>> Reply-to and the Cc, but ignores the From (the list address is munged into
>> the From
in Outlook to display the sender's address along with (or
instead of) the sender's name.
--
Benjamin
From: mailop On Behalf Of Neil Jenkins
Sent: mardi 12 mars 2019 02:44
To: Mailop
Subject: Re: [mailop] Mailing list with From header munging... and Outlook
On Tue, 12 Mar 2019, at 09:26, Jesse Th
On Tue, 12 Mar 2019, at 09:26, Jesse Thompson via mailop wrote:
> When someone reply-alls to a munged message it only composes a message to the
> Reply-to and the Cc, but ignores the From (the list address is munged into
> the From header).
That sounds exactly what I would expect for "Reply
Hi all,
We're making a push to get mailing lists to implement header munging because of
gov domains adopting DMARC p=reject.
Does anyone know what's up with Outlook (Office 365 Pro Plus) when "Reply All"
is used? When someone reply-alls to a munged message it only composes a
message to the
13 matches
Mail list logo
