On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 2:54 PM Jesse Thompson via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> On 3/13/2019 10:53 PM, Paul Gear via mailop wrote: > > On 12/3/19 11:48 pm, Jesse Thompson via mailop wrote: > >> On 3/12/2019 1:50 AM, Benjamin BILLON wrote: > >>> So, the question is rather why Jesse and Michael's messages contain a > >>> Reply-To: header, and not yours. > >>> > >>> (What will my contain? Surprise surprise! Using Outlook) > >> Well, splio.com publishes p=none, so this list isn't munging it, as > >> expected. > >> > >> This is why I'm not a fan of conditional rewriting by mailing lists. It > >> just makes it confusing to troubleshoot issues like this, and ends up > >> undermining DMARC stakeholder communication and complicating end-user > >> support. > > > > > > Are you saying that you'd rather have a mailing list always rewrite > > DMARC, regardless of whether it's sending on behalf of a sender in a > > DMARC-enabled domain, or something else? > > Yes. It would allow the larger community to address these issues well > in advance of each domain's DMARC adoption. > > As it stands now, these "conditional" issues are cropping up as > unforeseen or "poorly planned by IT". > > Conditional rewriting seems to give a signal that 100% DMARC adoption by > all domain is not the intended goal. > >From header rewriting for mailng lists is not without its draw backs, nor was it assumed at the start that DMARC was going to apply widely or have 100% adoption. I'm still not sure if 100% adoption is the goal. Also, we're working to mitigate the issue with mailing lists using ARC, though the path from here to there isn't completely clear. I'd say its less clear for mailing lists which start doing header rewriting, as at some point they'll have to determine whether or not its ok to stop rewriting, if ARC adoption is widespread enough... but those who jump straight to ARC, especially if they really really hate the rewriting, might maintain the status quo and be better off. Its a matter of what pain is best. No perfect solutions. There are those who are implementing DMARC and intend to go to p=quarantine/reject who would prefer maliing lists munged at p=none, so that they have a cleaner signal. OTOH, there are domains (*cough* gmail) which don't have a plan to move beyond p=none at this point, so .... Brandon
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
