[Mailman-Users] DMARC and Reply-To lines with from_is_list munging.

Stephen J. Turnbull stephen at xemacs.org
Tue May 13 10:28:30 CEST 2014

Mark Sapiro writes:
 > On 05/12/2014 01:25 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
 > > 
 > > How about multipart/alternative:
 > > 
 > >     message header
 > >     multipart/alternative
 > > 
 > >         part header
 > >         message/rfc822        # original message in all its glory
 > > 
 > >         part header
 > >         <traditional cooked list message>
 > Interesting idea, but I think the part order is reversed. The simplest,
 > most universally readable part is supposed to be first with parts of
 > increasing complexity coming later.

That's precisely the point.  Most MUAs choose to display the *last*
form that they understand, but there's no guarantee that they'll
understand earlier ones, so they should (but see below) keep trying.

As Bugs Bunny says, "Eh-he-he-eh, ain' I a stinka?!" ;-)

 > > Then amend the existing MIME RFCs to say that MUAs SHOULD (MAY?)
 > > simply display the original message in some appropriate way.  No?
 > I really wonder if that would help. Section 5.2 of RFC 2046 [...].
 > While this doesn't explicitly say MUAs SHOULD or MAY simply display the
 > original message in some appropriate way, it certainly conveys that
 > sentiment to me, yet here we are over 17 years later with apparently
 > some mainstream MUAs that don't do that.

I know, but what can we do?  There are very few of us who could get
away with telling our subscribers, "well, then, get a *real* MUA!!",
and even fewer who can do that, and want to.

More information about the Mailman-Users mailing list