On 3/24/2015 1:02 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Dave Crocker writes:
>
> > A mailing list typically defines a 'community' for discussion. At
> > least some of the modifications it does are to assert that
> > community in some visible ways.
>
> Sure, but From-munging is not an assertion of community, it's an
> assertion that there's a war out there, and the community is taking
> hits from friendly fire.
Your 'but' suggests that your comment counters mine, but I said 'some'
not all and I didn't mention the From field. Nor did I intend to count
>From munging as an exemplar.
> > Mailing lists therefore have the right to make the changes they
> > make.
>
> That's an incomplete statement. They have the right to make the
> changes as long as they are compatible with community standards.
There is a very long list of additional qualifiers and requirements one
might choose to include.
However I think they distract from the point I was making, which really
merely reflects what is in the Email Architecture RFC:
When an intermediary is re-posting a message, it owns the message
it is re-posting and has the right to do what it wants.
That's a system architecture "right", not a "social' right.
> Back to Dave:
>
> > I think the historical challenge has less been a case of
> > philosophical legitimacy
>
> From-munging is hardly open-and-shut "philosophically legitimate."
So it's probably good that I wasn't talking about that.
> It
> has its advocates, but it sucks for many users because of the way
> their MUAs handle it, it arguably violates RFC 5322, and is ugly to
> boot. Nevertheless, GNU Mailman has a From-Munging option.[1]
There are three operational problems with From munging:
1. The recipient sees a different string than they are used to, for
identifying the author of the message. That invites confusion.
2. The recipient's filtering engine will misbehave if it keys off of
author's name; a related problem is that message threading software will
misbehave.
3. From munging teaches spoofers how to bypass DMARC protections.
> > and more of inability to gain active, constructive participation of
> > mailing list software maintainers.
>
> Hey, I resent that. You guys use GNU Mailman; you know where to find
> us if you want participation.
I was making an historical comment. Many years ago. Ancient Internet.
Most of you folk probably weren't born yet. (just kidding.) (maybe.)
> It's not the MLM developers you have a problem getting cooperation
> from. It's our users.
We need to stop worrying about users. They are simply a distraction.
Or maybe...
> Bottom line: making indirect mail flows compatible with DMARC-style
> spoof-protection is a hard problem.
+1
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
