Greetings List Lurkers, Now that I think about it I've never received and email from the list server but I can send it just fine.
Regards Paul Flint On Sat, Feb 7, 2026, 12:28 Jim Lawson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Anthony, > > LISTSERV is not as tweak-able as you would think in this regard. It has > some code which seems to look into the DMARC policy for each sender, and > if your sending domain specifies p=reject or p=quarantine in its DMARC > policy, then it will automatically re-write your sender address when > distributing a list message so it does not collide with the DMARC policy. > > If you're curious, the docs are here: > > https://lsoft.com/manuals/17.0/advancedtopics/133HowdoesLISTSERVcomplywithDMAR.html > > You can see this happening with: > > Anthony Carrico <[email protected]> > Marcantonio Rendino <[email protected]> > > Because icloud.com and memebeam.org both publish p=reject DMARC policies. > > It is not happening with (e.g.) > > Paul Flint <[email protected]> > Stephen Barner <[email protected]> > Kevin Cole <[email protected]> > > Because FLINT.COM and GMAIL.COM publish a p=none policy. In itself this > is not a problem... > > While I don't have the log data in front of me to prove it, it appears > that some major providers, in particular, icloud.com, still behave as > though gmail.com has a p=reject policy, even though gmail.com publishes > a p=none policy in DNS. I'm sure this is done in the name of reducing > mail forgeries, spam, and joe-jobs, and a better experience for > icloud.com users. Unfortunately, it's a real impedance mismatch with > LISTSERV. There doesn't seem to be a way to tell LISTSERV to rewrite the > sender anyway, and I personally don't have the time while I'm at work to > chase this issue as mail administration now only represents the tiniest > portion of my job responsibilities. The only reason I'm writing this > now is because I'm putting off shoveling my driveway... > > Jim (old UVM admin and VAGUE member) > > > On 2/7/26 12:02, Anthony Carrico wrote: > > Hopefully the UVM admins are becoming aware of the issue and can tweak > > the setting to the mailing list software. I think such software has > > converged on some rewriting that works to satisfy the dmarc/dkim/spf > > infrastructure. > > > > It is a shame, we were heading down the path for people to sign their > > mail back in the '90s, but Senator McCain and Bill Gates didn't > > like/understand signature and derailed it. Now we seem to be stuck > > with outsourcing our own signatures to the post office. The world is > > upside down. > > >
