Hello, > > In particular, we don't include the original From: @domain because > > of goal #2 [in dmarc.py]. We use --- to imply that something is > > missing. Perhaps ellipsis would have been a better choice, but we > > didn't want anything that even hinted at a domain. > > OK, that makes some sense. Here's goal #2: > > # 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:. > > I don't recall there being documentation of this claim. I certainly > believe it happens at least occasionally (I know several mail admins > who will implement any filter that might eliminate 1 or more spams in > the next decade ;-). But is it really a major problem? > > I'm coming around to the idea of a general format language for > configuring various Mailman-generated texts with a bunch of standard > codes (like strftime). There are too many "minority" problems like > the OP's (and I suspect "multiple addresses are spam" for that > matter) > for me to be comfortable ignoring the set, but on the other hand the > number of options we'd have to provide to satisfy 1/10th of them > would > be insane, and unpopular with 99% of the folks considering changing > the default.
“It is claimed that multiple domains in any fields in From: are indicative for spamminess” is a rumour, which does not account for real-world feasible use cases. Since other MLMs have the option to include the full original-From: address in the display-part of the From: header, mailman shall have this option, too. Greetings Дилян _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list -- mailman-developers@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-developers-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-developers.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: https://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: https://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
