[Mailman-Users] 2.1.18 internal documentation suggestions

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Mark Sapiro writes:

 > I'm not sure what to change at this point. I really don't want another
 > change in the attribute name, but maybe.

Yeah, I know.  On the other hand, now that it really matters, this is
probably the last chance to make such a change.

 > I'm also not sure about alignment as that is a technical term in the
 > DMARC spec and may be more technical than we want here.

Sure.  But "from rewriting" is something we do for other reasons
(anonymous lists), and saying that message/rfc822 encapsulation is
"from rewriting" seems way too inaccurate to me.

 > >     [FIXME: Should this respect the MIME vs. legacy encapsulation
 > >     ('digest') setting?  If 'yes', that setting should move to General
 > >     or so?]
 > 
 > I don't want to go the FIXME route. It's too hard for this release.

OK.

 > Also, are you suggesting doing this for all messages based on what is
 > now Digest options-> mime_is_default_digest or doing it per user based
 > on the user's "Get MIME or Plain Text Digests?"

Per user, because of the issues we've heard about specific MUAs having
trouble with MIME encapsulation.

 > Also, this (legacy encapsulation) really only differs from the Munge
 > >From option in that a few headers are copied to the body of the message
 > and non-text/plain part are scrubbed, and I don't know how valuable it
 > would be.

True.  I mention it because we've had PRs about MIME encapsulation
already.

 > >  > header munging settings below with the exception of adding "via
 > >  > real_name" to the display name in the From: for an anonymous list and
 > > 
 > > ??  Adding real name to From in an *anonymous* list?
 > 
 > real_name refers the the list attribute which is the list name with
 > possibly different capitalization, but I see it should be changed.

OIC.  I don't think you need to mention it here; Mailman should just
DTRT.  If it's an anonymous list, the list owner should configure
'From' correctly, that's all.

 > Hold is not an option for dmarc_moderation_action. it is the action
 > which applies to messages From: a domain with DMARC policy p=reject an
 > optionally p=quarantine. The possible actions are Accept, Munge From,
 > Wrap Message, Reject or Discard

I don't understand why we need both this and list_is_from?  The latter
is a clear violation of RFC 5322, acceptable only because it's one of
the approaches the DMARC proponents (and Yahoo!) suggest for mailing
lists faced with a DMARC DoS attack.  Why not just deprecate
list_is_from in favor of dmarc_moderation_action?