Sandro Santilli <[email protected]> writes: > For reference: osgeo-discuss seem to be always munging the from > and adding a Reply-To: original_sender. From where I'm standing (mutt) > it seems to be handled very well.
We can separate adding a footer (aka MITM attack on the body) which breaks DKIM changing from (breaks lots of things including DKIM) and adding reply-to: with original sender setting reply-to list This list adds, or maybe you put it in: Reply-To: PostGIS Users Discussion <[email protected]> which causes the reply MUA action to send a private reply to the list. This is simply not ok, and if it is added by the list it is a standards violation. From: munging, while there can be many situations where various MUAs do what people expect, is problematic because: It's a standards violation. From: is defined as the sender, and mail to that must go to the sender. It breaks things like "add sender to address book". It breaks "welcomelist_from" in Spamassassin, and similar. It breaks "gnus-summary-increase-score" when selecting author, because the from field no longer contains the author. it breaks anything else when people expect the standards-compliant behavior that the from: field contains the origitor's address It breaks things like the TXREP plugin in spamassassin which keeps track of score history by sender. Because of widespread Reply-To: abuse, it is reasonable for people to ignore it on mailinglists. So a munged from will be included in a reply. (It seems obvious that expecting people to keep track of which lists insert false reply-to headers and configure mail clients to selectively reject is unreasonable; it's far more effort than expecting people to filter on list-id.) Both From: munging and body munging are problematic because: DKIM fails, and that means welcomelist_from_dkim in Spamassassin and similar do not work. I have had to add not only welcomelist_from_dkim but also welcomelist_from_rcvd for specific lists. It's not ok to ask people to use welcomelist_from (with no linkage to dkim or sending server) because lots of spam is forged form people you know from compromised accounts. All of this pain happens because people think it is important to modify the subject and the body. We've had a List-Id for 22.5 years: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc2919/ which is expressly useful for mail systems to sort list mail how the user wants it. As I see it, the only argument in favor of munging is groupthink that mailinglists are supposed to modify the subject and body, because people expect it, becaue mailinglists were misconfigured that way last year as well. _______________________________________________ postgis-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
