[Mailman-Users] cause of bounces

Grant Taylor gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net
Wed Oct 18 14:14:35 EDT 2017

On 10/18/2017 11:50 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> This is the crux of our disagreement. The outbound message is still the
> original author's message, albeit slightly altered by subject prefixing,
> content filtering and/or other transformations to conform with list
> policies. I don't agree that it is a completely new message. I think it
> is still the original message with only technical and formatting changes.

I feel we have reached an impasse and we must agree to disagree.

> The difference is wrapping the message preserves the original message's
> headers (particularly From:) and makes it the content of another message
> which says essentially "here's the message the list received". That
> outer message can be From: the list and still be standards compliant.


> However, if you are just sending the body of the original message From:
> the list, according to RFC 5322 et al, you are saying the list is the
> author of that message body. This is not true and is why I say the
> message is not compliant with RFC 5322 et al.

I believe we are each entitled to our own opinions.  ;-)

> Granted, all things considered, this is what most of us choose to do.
> I'm not saying this shouldn't be done. It is something we are forced to
> do because certain freemail providers choose to publish DMARC p=reject
> policies contrary to the original intent of DMARC, but all I'm saying is
> we should not forget that when we do this, we are sending messages that
> are not strictly standards compliant.

I think it will be interesting to see what happens as more and more 
domains adopt DMARC, including those that use p=reject.  Especially with 
some of governmental institutions purportedly being mandated to use 
DMARC.  -  IMHO, DMARC is going to eventually become the new norm.

I also wonder what ARC is going to do to this paradigm.

Grant. . . .
unix || die

More information about the Mailman-Users mailing list