Re: What I've been wondering about the DMARC problem

[Sabahattin Gucukoglu <[e-mail]>]

On 17 Apr 2014, at 21:06, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 17/04/2014 22:03, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
>> On 16 Apr 2014, at 21:36, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> On 16/04/2014 18:58, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
>>>> On 15 Apr 2014, at 21:38, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> 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