[Mailman-Users] DKIM best practise
mail at endlessvoid.com
Mon Jun 22 05:00:27 CEST 2015
What you describe below makes sense, and I agree hotmail is behaving
badly, but I'm stuck with its bad behaviour.
In any case, if From Munging is not good to do generally then I have to
figure out another way placate Yahoo's spam filter.
On 22/06/2015 12:33 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> On 06/20/2015 06:39 PM, Yasir Assam wrote:
>> Is there any way I can get hotmail to reply to the list when the From:
>> header is munged? Is munging considered bad form (when not mitigating
>> DMARC reject policies)?
> It may not have been clear from my earlier reply, but yes, From Munging
> is considered bad form. It violates the basic email RFCs definition of
> the meaning of the From: header. It is best not to do it
> unconditionally, and a better response to DMARC mitigation is Wrap
> Message, but that said we recognize that Wrap Message creates issues for
> some (particularly moblie device) MUAs so that in some cases at least,
> Munge From is the most acceptable mitigation. It is best if only applied
> when needed via dmarc_moderation_action and not unconditionally via
> On a different subject, I have looked a bit further, and with what I
> understand your list settings to be, i.e. Full Personalization,
> from_is_list = Munge From, reply_goes_to_list = Poster; I think even
> with 2.1.18 the list posting address will be put in or added to Cc:, and
> the original From: will be in Reply-To:.
> Thus any reasonable MUA should 'reply' to the original From: and
> 'reply-all' to the original From: and the list. If the headers are as I
> say and Hotmail is not doing this, then Hotmail is behaving badly as the
> Reply-To: should override the list address in the From:, but it
> shouldn't affect replying-all to a Cc:.
More information about the Mailman-Users