> From: Brad Beyenhof [mailto:bbeyen...@icloud.com] > > Ah, Reply-To munging. Last time this came up on our local LUG mailing list, > there was quite a storm of opinion. However, if making a stance NOT to > munge would prevent some people from participating, I think everybody > would've been in favor.
Well, in the past, there was a lot of room for opinion. But now and moving forward, there isn't a lot of alternative. See this article: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2141120/yahoo-email-antispoofing-policy-breaks-mailing-lists.html (a) It's not just yahoo, this is actually a reasonable and good policy, and it's been growing for years, and you can expect it to continue growing, and it's only a matter of time before gmail etc do the same. (b) When yahoo users post to a list, their mail gets distributed to recipients of the list, and the recipient mail servers bounce the message. So mail addressed to y...@gmail.com or m...@nedharvey.com get bounced. And mailman is likely to unsubscribe us as a result. (Not the yahoo sender.) Assuming the list is run on mailman, the one and only obvious correct action is to read the DMARC page on Mailman (posted in my OP message) and choose one of the solutions that they recommend. The most obvious of which is the Reply-To munging. _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list Tech@lists.lopsa.org https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
