Re: DMARC and ietf.org

[Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]>]

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 21/07/2014 05:09, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> ...
>> Leaving aside the question of whether or not IETF should use a
>> workaround, I thought there was a mailman patch to deal with re-writing
>> from addresses for DMARC p=reject.
> No, it isn't selective for addresses from a domain with a p=reject policy.
> It's clearly unacceptable to rewrite addresses that don't need to be
> rewritten.

Seems to be now.  From the Mailman site:

Implemented now for release in 2.1.18 are the following:

  * The from_is_list feature from 2.1.16 is always available.
  * There are new settings in Privacy options - Sender filters:
      o dmarc_moderaction_action is a five valued setting with values
          + Accept - accept the post without rewriting From: or wrapping
            the message
          + Munge From - rewrite the From: and Reply-To: as in from_is_list
          + Wrap Message - wrap the message as in from_is_list
          + Reject - reject the post
          + Discard - Discard the post
      o dmarc_moderaction_notice is a custom reject message to replace
        the default Reject message.
  * The above options other than Accept override thefrom_is_list setting
    for messages whose original From: domain publishes a DMARC policy of
    p=reject or p=quarantine. A per-list option is available to limit
    this to just p=reject or to apply it to either p=reject or
    p=quarantine. If the option is Accept, the from_is_list setting applies.
  * There is a site option to set the default for
    dmarc_moderaction_action and list admins may not set the action to a
    setting which is above the site default in the above list. E.g., if
    the site default is Reject, list admins can only set Reject or
    Discard; if the site default is Munge From, list admins can select
    anything but Accept.

Miles





-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra