Although I re-raised the change log issue as part of the auto-forward problem,
I am hoping that it will have significant benefit to the mailing list community
also.
Of the three types of content changes that I proposed, the easiest to specify
and get implemented is the first type, where the med
In article <767e2dcc-e87c-1e90-2f86-486e51a3c...@wisc.edu>,
Jesse Thompson wrote:
>I realize that John's message in the other thread probably wasn't referencing
>auto-forwarding, but I think his point
>dovetails to the auto-forwarding issue:
>
>> As always, as I hope we all remember DMARC alignm
On 9/3/20 4:33 PM, Doug Foster wrote:
> OAUTH vs. More careful forwarding
>
> Pursuing both techniques makes the most sense.Some users may be
> unwilling (or not allowed) to store credentials in the target server, while
> being unwilling to do a manu
OAUTH vs. More careful forwarding
Pursuing both techniques makes the most sense.Some users may be
unwilling (or not allowed) to store credentials in the target server, while
being unwilling to do a manual operation to obtain their new messages.
Sinc
On 9/2/20 6:33 AM, Douglas E. Foster wrote:
> For mailing lists, we have pushed the limits of authorization. But there is
> another class of problems where sender authorization is not feasible: mail
> which is auto-forwarded after a spam-filter has made content-altering changes.
Yes, this is
