Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System
On 11/29/18 3:25 PM, J. Lewis Muir via Tech-talk wrote:
>
> As you alluded to, I think this change in behavior may be due to
> Argonne's email changes, DMARC in particular. Andrew, or whoever the
> list administrator is, would probably know. Specifically, it seems
> that Mailman, the mailing list manager software for the Tech-Talk
> list, is rewriting the header as follows.
>
> The field
>
> From: [name] [email-address]
>
> becomes two fields
>
> From: [name] via Tech-Talk <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: [name] [email-address]
>
> I think this rewrite is causing the reply-all function of some MUAs
> (e.g., Outlook and iOS Mail) to not work correctly.
Mailman has some configuration choices to work around the problem that
DMARC policies don't allow mailing lists to forward messages with the
original From: header any more. Argonne now requires us to make this
change, although they weren't the first site to implement this DMARC
stuff so I actually flipped things a few months ago and posted to
tech-talk about it at the time.
One change I could make would be to make the Reply-To: header point back
to the list rather than to the author. However this setting is not
recommended; Mailman gives the following advice:
> reply_goes_to_list (general): Where are replies to list messages directed?
> Poster is strongly recommended for most mailing lists.
> This option controls what Mailman does to the Reply-To: header in messages
> flowing through this mailing list. When set to Poster, no Reply-To: header
> is added by Mailman, although if one is present in the original message,
> it is not stripped. Setting this value to either This list or Explicit
> address causes Mailman to insert a specific Reply-To: header in all
> messages, overriding the header in the original message if necessary
> (Explicit address inserts the value of reply_to_address).
>
> There are many reasons not to introduce or override the Reply-To:
> header. One is that some posters depend on their own Reply-To: settings
> to convey their valid return address. Another is that modifying Reply-To:
> makes it much more difficult to send private replies. See `Reply-To'
> Munging Considered Harmful http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> for a general discussion of this issue. See Reply-To Munging Considered
> Useful http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml for a dissenting
> opinion.
However the first link above is dated 2002 (well before DMARC), and the
second one doesn't work at all for me.
> Or maybe there's a mailing list manager software option that could be
> tweaked. Based on the X-Mailman-Version header field, the Tech-Talk
> list is being managed by Mailman 2.1.12. That is the stable 2.x
> series version, but there is a stable 3.x series version too: Mailman
> 3.2.0. In 3.2.0, I see an interesting option "reply_goes_to_list" at
>
> https://mailman.readthedocs.io/en/latest/src/mailman/handlers/docs/dmarc-mitigations.html
>
> that says
>
> reply_goes_to_list
>
> If this is set to other than no-munging of Reply-To:, the original
> From: goes in Cc: rather than Reply-To:. This is intended to make
> MUA functions of reply and reply-all have the same effect with
> messages to which mitigations have been applied as they do with
> other messages.
>
> I wonder if using this option would make the rewrite of
>
> From: [name] [email-address]
>
> become
>
> From: [name] via Tech-Talk <[email protected]>
> Cc: [name] [email-address]
>
> and if that would make the reply-all function of Outlook and iOS Mail
> work again.
I have a ticket in with CIS about this, prompted by Mark's frustrations.
As you saw our Mailman version is still 2.1.12 so I don't have the above
setting available to me, although it looks interesting.
- Andrew
--
Arguing for surveillance because you have nothing to hide is no
different than making the claim, "I don't care about freedom of
speech because I have nothing to say." -- Edward Snowdon
- References:
- Question about this mailing list Mark Rivers via Tech-talk
- Re: Question about this mailing list Ralph Lange via Tech-talk
- Re: Question about this mailing list Mark Rivers via Tech-talk
- Re: Question about this mailing list J. Lewis Muir via Tech-talk
- RE: Question about this mailing list Mark Rivers via Tech-talk
- Re: Question about this mailing list J. Lewis Muir via Tech-talk
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: Question about this mailing list Ivashkevych, Oksana via Tech-talk
- Next:
RE: Question about this mailing list Mark Rivers via Tech-talk
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
<2018>
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: Question about this mailing list Maren Purves via Tech-talk
- Next:
Problems with using PI E-712 controller 孙天啸 via Tech-talk
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
<2018>
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024