On Thursday 28 February 2019 at 20:25:36, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2019, at 13:43, Mike Marynowski wrote:
> > On 2/28/2019 12:41 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
> >> You should probably put the envelope sender (i.e. the SA
> >> "EnvelopeFrom" pseudo-header) into that list, maybe even first. That
> >> will make many messages sent via discussion mailing lists (such as
> >> this one) pass your test where a test of real header domains would
> >> fail, while it it is more likely to cause commercial bulk mail to
> >> fail where it would usually pass based on real standard headers.
> >> (That's based on a hunch, not testing.)
> >
> > Can you clarify why you think my currently proposed headers would fail
> > with the mailing list? As far as I can tell, all the messages I've
> > received from this mailing list would pass just fine. As an example
> > from the emails in this list, which header value specifically would
> > cause it to fail?
>
> If I did not explicitly set the Reply-To header, this message would be
> delivered without one. The domain part of the From header on messages I
> post to this and other mailing lists has no website and never will.
The same applies to my messages as well. I use a list-specific "subdomain" on
all my various list subscription addresses, however unlike Bill, I never set a
Reply-To address, because I expect all list replies to go to the list (which I
then receive as a subscriber).
Any emails which are sent to my list-subscription addresses directly (ie: not
via the mailing list server, which adds its own identifiable headers) are
discarded.
Regards,
Antony.
--
It may not seem obvious, but (6 x 5 + 5) x 5 - 55 equals 5!
Please reply to the list;
please *don't* CC me.
