On 17 Apr 2014, at 21:06, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 17/04/2014 22:03, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote: >> On 16 Apr 2014, at 21:36, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 16/04/2014 18:58, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote: >>>> On 15 Apr 2014, at 21:38, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> 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