On 17 Apr 2014, at 21:06, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 17/04/2014 22:03, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
On 16 Apr 2014, at 21:36, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 16/04/2014 18:58, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
On 15 Apr 2014, at 21:38, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
The mailman fix is worse than the disease. I think the .INVALID fix is
much better, because Reply-all will still work.
Reply-all should still work with the Mailman fix;
It doesn't work *properly*. Firstly, this message wouldn't be sent
to you with CC to the list, which is the correct semantic.
If you weren't a subscriber, you would never see it. Secondly,
Sorry, but I appear to be confused.
The Reply-To: field is adjusted to be the author's address,
Oh, OK. Most UAs will probably do what you describe, but I think
there are exceptions. However, if I want to reply to the author
alone, it's now the simple Reply that will fail me, because it
will reply to the list. And in my mail folders, messages will
all appear to come from the list; if I want to find the message
that Sabahattin sent me two years ago, I can't, because my UA
doesn't allow for searching on the Reply-To field.
It's still got very poor semantics.
Precisely right, and especially +1 to the concluding paragraph.
Is now the time to discuss making it policy for mail receivers to supply
user-modifiable signer-domain bypasses? Or is "Whitelisting" still considered
a dirty word and "Not scalable"? :)
Cheers,
Sabahattin