[Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working
mark at msapiro.net
Tue Jan 30 22:00:07 EST 2018
On 01/30/2018 06:46 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote:
> I wonder if that hints at another option when munging the From: (i.e.
> for DMARC reason). Add the author (read: the original From:) as a
> Reply-To and set the mailing list as From:. That would provide the
> original author information that many people want and (correctly)
> complain that From: munging hides.
The Munge From DMARC mitigations do essentially that. The message From:
Joe User <user at dmarc.example.com> gets sent From: Joe User via Listname
<listname at example.net> and has the original From: in either Reply-To: or
Cc: depending on some settings according to these goals.
> # MAS: We need to do some things with the original From: if we've munged
> # it for DMARC mitigation. We have goals for this process which are
> # not completely compatible, so we do the best we can. Our goals are:
> # 1) as long as the list is not anonymous, the original From: address
> # should be obviously exposed, i.e. not just in a header that MUAs
> # don't display.
> # 2) the original From: address should not be in a comment or display
> # name in the new From: because it is claimed that multiple domains
> # in any fields in From: are indicative of spamminess. This means
> # it should be in Reply-To: or Cc:.
> # 3) the behavior of an MUA doing a 'reply' or 'reply all' should be
> # consistent regardless of whether or not the From: is munged.
> # Goal 3) implies sometimes the original From: should be in Reply-To:
> # and sometimes in Cc:, and even so, this goal won't be achieved in
> # all cases with all MUAs. In cases of conflict, the above ordering of
> # goals is priority order.
Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
More information about the Mailman-Users