On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 08:09:29 PM Joel W. Shea via luv-main wrote:
I don't like the idea of having different handling methods for different messages. We have already had one user complain about this even though we aren't doing it!
Technically, you are ... by munging the from field on all messages.
To wit, the difference in handling becomes very obvious when only receiving the message directly, presumably because the recipient address is also in the "To:" or the "Cc:" field and the list then may (or may not) send a duplicate, exhibiting the different handling method.
It is true that when someone receives 2 copies of the message (from the list and from a CC) they get 2 different versions. I'm not totally opposed to using the DMARC setting.
[...] Apart from the ones who receive mail viw Gmail, the ones who complained about my mail going to their spam folders which started me working on this.
Since Mailman was breaking the signature by re-folding the headers, this could have been resolved in one of many ways; including signing with a relaxed header canonicalization, or by having the list server strip the DKIM signature entirely (having been verified by the MTA already).
Mailman is also reencoding my messages as base64 for some reason. It's not doing it for everyone and other instances of Mailman don't so we can probably solve it. But this still won't solve the issues with DMARC.
There may (or may not) have been discussion amongst the committee members about possible modifications to the list, but there doesn't appear to be any transparency regarding this, and there certainly wasn't any requests for consultation (commentary/suggestions) from ordinary list members *before* making a seemingly unilateral change.
There wasn't a discussion because no-one on the committee felt the need for a discussion. I suggested that we have one but it seems that no-one had any problems with it. I enabled it on the committee list before luv-talk and everyone there seemed happy. For comparison the committee discussion about moving the LUV server (probably the most important issue the committee has discussed in the past year or so) was held on Google Hangouts and we only got 5/9 in attendance. The history of LUV shows that asking for commentary from members before making a change is something you only do if you don't want to make a change. It took us years to get public archives for the LUV lists with many discussions like this along the way. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/