From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33298) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1csw0U-0004vt-RW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:38:16 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1csw0R-0003tv-Pe for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:38:14 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41204) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1csw0R-0003tY-GG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:38:11 -0400 References: From: Eric Blake Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:38:04 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="nV1jXetfVwhbbeJMSkkrmNn5hQ43tl45P" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu-devel mailing list vs DMARC and microsoft.com's p=reject policy List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Andrew Baumann , Peter Maydell , QEMU Developers Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , "Michael S. Tsirkin" This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --nV1jXetfVwhbbeJMSkkrmNn5hQ43tl45P From: Eric Blake To: Andrew Baumann , Peter Maydell , QEMU Developers Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu-devel mailing list vs DMARC and microsoft.com's p=reject policy References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 03/28/2017 12:53 PM, Andrew Baumann via Qemu-devel wrote: >> (3) I could set dmarc_moderation_action to Munge From, which means th= at >> those senders who have a p=3Dreject policy will get their mails >> rewritten to have a From=3D"Whoever (via the list) " >> and their actual email in the Reply-to: >> * if anybody's mail client doesn't honour Reply-to: then what they >> think is a personal reply will go to the list by accident That's my favorite of the options (and these days, reply-to works a lot better than it used to even 10 year ago)... >> >> For the moment I have picked option (3), but I'm open to argument >> that we should pick something else. >=20 > Option 3 is a fine one from my perspective (I could also live with 2). = This email will hopefully help you test whether it's effective. and it appears to have worked; Andrew's mail purported to be from the list, but had a correct 'Reply-to', and my mailer (thunderbird) appears to do the right thing for reply-to-all. --=20 Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org --nV1jXetfVwhbbeJMSkkrmNn5hQ43tl45P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Public key at http://people.redhat.com/eblake/eblake.gpg Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJY2q2NAAoJEKeha0olJ0NqmRwIAIuCFetNjwlD9dzQHYZ4eMHs 6XbEHQWlNlEqtqQuvG5F+Vg3hNRd7jp3S4BQzLSU+nc8EUON1yXHcbeljElvptAT iSWmKPVzBNPvwySlhTxfVPGSz7eglLTJSKm2RZ8fryS1j8bCUaahhYg5bp2Uug8k fAaqmTLjuNAhGwIqIFBHEB9GQxQz87lrMhT7skI+HWvfoVEt8vUM+dYhCld3vJp+ LcP9g9VhrIjjbDAfCLkHT2WlSKY0nOnJFi0Vkxs3XX+aS8qPbcQ7CGTWSgwRbJou mEF3bb+RTJyMUeEXokSaqqnDcEouOX1e1P9xERnN0cigcKNYDWA4sCXTAFomY5A= =ePak -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nV1jXetfVwhbbeJMSkkrmNn5hQ43tl45P--