On Sun 06/Nov/2016 09:17:53 +0100 Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Alessandro Vesely writes:
The idea is to add a footer only in case it is not present,
Aside from the technical difficulties that Mark describes, this suffers from a really big defect: for this to be actually useful, you'd need near-100% participation (Authenticated Received Chain has the same problem).
No, the difference is that ARC applies at the receiving side, so you need 100% compliance of list subscribers. Camera-ready applies at the sending side, so the list can still apply any anti-DMARC workarounds if it fails.
Once you've got that, no new Mailman code is needed: just don't use a footer in the first place!
And it requires effort on the part of providers we already know are irresponsible and inconsiderate because they provide personal mail services disrupted by "p=reject", or on the part of users at those sites, many of whom blame mailing lists, not their irresponsible and/or inexpert providers, for difficulties with posting.
Yes, but then it would be less disgusting to punish users of intractable providers.
If you don't get near 100%, then you need to provide the workarounds for all users and originating sites that don't participate anyway, to all of your subscribers -- and "nonparticipants" will include the posters who are most likely to blame the lists for any delivery problems, and get upset about "different treatment" (eg, From- munging).
Yes, that's already in place. It is considered a somewhat dirty solution. Camera-ready is cleaner than anything I have heard till now. Probably it is not workable, but I cannot understand why. It works well in several publishing environments, typically journals, which distribute templates to authors. Why can't it work for mailing lists?
Ale