[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