> On Jul 21, 2016, at 12:43 PM, ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> On 7/21/2016 7:35 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> > Yes. So I repeat the question: Since the most pragmatic, non-purity-based > >> > solution is to rewrite the sender field for mail from p=reject (or p=quarantine) > >> > domains, when will we change the IETF and IRTF mailmen to do so? > > > > > >> I'm sure you really meant this, but just to be careful, what with this > >> being a technical point in a technical forum, it's worth clarifying that > >> the rewriting is for the rfc5322.from field and not the rfc5322.sender > >> field. > > > > I have an additional suggestion. > > > > If we're going to do this - and I'm not going to offer an opinion on whether or > > not it should be done - I'd like to see it done in a fashion that's both > > detectable and reversible. That way people using sieve or procmail or whatever > > will be able to undo the damage. > > > > The most straightforward way to accomplish this would be to make copies of the > > original fields with different names, but of course many other approaches are > > possible. > I do not see MailMan settings to make that happen. Maybe I missed something... That's most unfortunate, and I have to say moves my position from neutral to "don't do it". Reversible damage is one thing, irreversible damage another. Ned