[GRLUG] "From" adresses

[Grand Rapids Linux Users Group]

On 4/8/19 11:25 AM, Grand Rapids Linux Users Group wrote:
> On 4/8/19 10:21 AM, Grand Rapids Linux Users Group wrote:
>>> This is the only list I'm on that does this, though.  I can't imagine
>>> this is uncommon.  What I'm used to seeing is listserv software that
>>> adds a "Reply-To" header and leaves "From" the same as in the
>>> original inbound message, usually with an "In-Reply-To" reference
>>> from a previous message so e-mail clients can keep thread hierarchy
>>> straight.  The GRLUG list did this until hosting was moved, and I
>>> don't remember any problems with that - take a look at messages prior
>>> to February for examples ofhow the headers worked.  So I think it 
>>> could be made to work.
>> The world has changed;  for the worse, IMNSHO, but it has none the
>> less.
>>
>> Several LARGE proprietary mail solutions have added restrictions on e-
>> mail that is breaking the traditional operation of listservs in order
>> to [theoretically] deal with SPAM and Malware [distributed and
>> autonomous solutions are also more difficult to monetize, so there's
>> that].
>>
>> Possibly the gecos portion of the address could be left unaltered? - if
>> the maillist software supports it; but the "From:" has to work for SPF,
>> DKIM, etc... or the message will be ash-canned.
>>
>> Note: I am not the list admin.  And as the list admin is not paid
>> he|she|they should only be thanked for their efforts.
>>
>> P.S.  With the ever expanding "innovative" collaboration platform of
>> the month club I've come to really miss NNTP/Usenet.
>>
> Oh, I agree.  This list has been maintained in working order for years,
> and that is quite commendable.  Whether this input is taken or not, it's
> still an excellent service to the community.
>
> GRLUG doesn't have a published DMARC record, and we don't appear to have
> an SPF policy, either.  Which means the only thing we've got is senders
> sending DKIM-signed messages, which unless they're re-signed by the
> listserv software (which it doesn't do, and I get an empty result
> querying for pubkeys, so it can't), are only valid if the From address
> *doesn't* get changed, provided they've signed the From header.  So all
> in all, I suspect we'd actually *improve* our ability to get through
> filters if we reverted to the way it worked 3 months ago.
>
> Warm Regards,
> Kyle Maas
>

Actually, thinking about it, the listserv adds a footer at the bottom of
messages, so DKIM signatures would need to be stripped anyway or they'll
mismatch regardless of fiddling with From, so maybe that's a moot
point.  So it would probably not improve things to change the From
behavior, but I doubt it would hurt.

Warm Regards,
Kyle Maas