On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 08:04:15PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > > Simple ... from Yahoo!'s perspective the breakage is negligible, not > serious. Traditional e-mail traffic to and from traditional e-mail lists > (like this one) is simply not large enough to lose sleep over. Keep in mind, > Yahoo! knew what breakage was going to occur before they threw the switch, > and they threw the switch anyway. > > Again, I realize that it's hard for most IETF'ers to conceive of, but in > this matter we are the ultimate anachronists. The problem is that e-mail volume really is the wrong way to measure "breakage". After all, the vast majority of e-mail may be SPAM, but that doesn't mean that those e-mail messages are the ones that any users care about. I've already had to send out message to my church's vestry (governing board) explaining that people who are using Yahoo aren't going to be able to send to the church mailing lists reliably, and that for now, until I can get around to fixing the mailing list software (hint: not during Holy Week), that their messages will be held for moderation until someone can manually cut and paste it and send it on their behalf. I've also explained that if they care, they should consider complaining to Yahoo and/or switching e-mail providers. If enough people do the same, maybe Yahoo will reconsider. If not, so long most of my e-mail community switches mail providers (i.e., treating yahoo.com as damage, and routing around it), I may not care all that much. In the maintime, if someone has had the time to hack together some patches to mailman to write the from field of yahoo.com users to be yahoo.com.INVALID. Please send them my way; I'll be most grateful. - Ted