Re: [dmarc-ietf] yet more From rewriting, was Additional List-foo Header Field To Help Mitigate Mailing List Damage

2014-09-18 Thread Roland Turner
On 09/18/2014 09:44 PM, John Levine wrote: The opportunity for this WG would appear to be to spell out sensible practices for use in the two situations, and perhaps to spell out the trade-offs for deciding between the two, assuming that we are able to do so without devolving into further equine

Re: [dmarc-ietf] yet more From rewriting, was Additional List-foo Header Field To Help Mitigate Mailing List Damage

2014-09-18 Thread John Levine
>The opportunity for this WG would appear to be to spell out sensible >practices for use in the two situations, and perhaps to spell out the >trade-offs for deciding between the two, assuming that we are able to do >so without devolving into further equine abuse. I'd suggest that >specifying a

Re: [dmarc-ietf] yet more From rewriting, was Additional List-foo Header Field To Help Mitigate Mailing List Damage

2014-09-18 Thread Roland Turner
On 09/17/2014 05:10 PM, John Levine wrote: Lists that rewrite the From: line were a bad idea then, and are an equally bad idea now, for reasons that have been discussed to death. Your position on that debate is well known. I'd suggest that arguing over whether or not anyone should rewrite th

Re: [dmarc-ietf] yet more From rewriting, was Additional List-foo Header Field To Help Mitigate Mailing List Damage

2014-09-17 Thread John Levine
>I would certainly suggest a thing independently of DMARC (thus "both >technically accurate and real-world-sensible") and, indeed, can't even >claim credit for it: this has come up before in both the DKIM/ADSP >discussion and in the origin of the term "authoring list". I am >surprised to learn