On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 02:11:32 AM Craig Sanders via luv-main wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:31:47PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 08:36:30 AM Craig Sanders via luv-main wrote: Why are we having an argument about comments then? If they are just comments then it shouldn't be a big deal.
because munging them screws up an MUAs ability to reply correctly.
That means that they aren't comments.
because overwriting the Reply-To: header can make it impossible to reply to the original sender.
I'm up for negotiating on that matter.
because what mailman is doing with DMARC is broken.
It's doing the best it can in a difficult situation.
if mailman is breaking DKIM-signed message then that needs to be fixed. mangling headers is a crappy workaround hack, not a fix.
Fine, Tell us how to fix it without mangling headers.
why me? i'm not the one who wants to change anything. you've changed things and caused breakage.
a better idea would be for you to fix it instead of deciding that mangling headers is a reasonable thing to do.
I fixed it, mail is now being delivered reliably. If you want "comments" to be different in email then you can help figure out how to do that without compromising mail reliability.
i.e. you want it, you fix it.
Yes, you do that.
a) i'm not a python programmer
Same here.
b) i disagree with the concept of DMARC, so i have no desire to implement it or fix a particularly broken implementation of it.
I have things working quite well so I have little incentive to change Mailman code.
OK. Let's fix that. I don't have the time or skill to fix Mailman code, could you please do it for me?
translation: i've enabled a broken feature and rather than revert that change, i'll badger someone else to fix the problem for me. you enabled it, it's up to you to either fix it or disable it again.
Translation: You think that Yahoogroups, the Mailman developers and everyone else have got it wrong but can't be bothered showing us all how to do it in a way that you like.