On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:37:01 AM Craig Sanders via luv-talk wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 09:11:37AM +1100, Craig Sanders via luv-talk wrote:
On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 06:00:51PM +1100, Russell Coker via luv-talk wrote:
I've changed this list to munge the From: field which allows the LUV [...] I will do it to the luv-main list in the near future.
Please don't.
This makes it impossible to reply privately.
It's even worse than Reply-To: munging.
Much worse, because it looks like you're not only munging the From: header, you're also munging the Reply-To: header (probably as a Q&D hack to "repair" the damage you've done by munging From:)
In Kmail "Reply" goes to the list, "Reply to all" goes to list and sender, "reply to authir" goes to the sender, and "reply to mailing list" goes to the list. In K9 "reply" goes to the sender and "reply to all" goes to the list as well. It seems to work in a reasonable way.
how much spam, if any, have you ever seen that forged a luv-* list address in the From: header? You're breaking standards and useful functionality (private replies) in order to solve a non-existent problem.
That is not the problem we are trying to solve. The issue is that more of the big sending domains are using DMARC entries (yahoo is one) and more of the big receiving domains are rejecting mail based on them (gmail is one). -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/