Stephen Turnbull added the comment: Eric Smith writes:
> This would be great. For some reason, 90% of Rietveld messages end > up caught by my spam filter provider. Do you (or any of the affected recipients) *in principle* *prefer* having the From field contain the responsible developer? If not, changing From to contain Reitveld is likely the best solution. > I'd prefer a fixed "From:" address. My spam filterer can easily add > a whitelisted From: address, but not so some other header. It's a > commercial product, so I don't have much influence over it. It's possible that the spam filters are either DMARC-conforming, in which case some "From:" addresses are at great risk, or simply give "spam points" to lack of a From-aligned DKIM signature. I suppose the relevant MTA does provide valid SPF and DKIM authentication for the Reitveld 'bot, but it cannot do so for the third-party developers (unless they happen to have mailboxes in the same domain as Reitveld). Given the relative ease of whitelisting From for many recipients and the tie of From to DMARC, I think your proposed change is the best idea. Personally I don't see a strong reason for having developers in the >From field. I slightly prefer having Reitveld as the From author, with a citation to the responsible developer in the message body. But that might just be me. :-) ---------- nosy: +stephen _______________________________________________________ PSF Meta Tracker <metatrac...@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> <http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue554> _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Tracker-discuss mailing list Tracker-discuss@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-discuss
