[Mailman-Users] Ignore DMARC bounces?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Peter Shute writes:

 > But from the member's perspective they're being asked to change
 > something they've possibly had for many years, for a reason they
 > don't fully understand, and which they may not even believe.

That kind of thing happens to me all the time (I now live in Japan).
Nothing new about that.

 > After all, they can send ok to other recipients, so why not lists?

If they don't want to learn why not, they'll just have to take
someone's word for it.  They chose Yahoo!, Yahoo! chose to deny them
service.  Not the list -- if the list changes *nothing* (that it has
"possibly had for many years"), most subscribers will not receive any
posts from Yahoo! users.  What changed?  "p=reject", that's all.

And remember, it's not just lists that Yahoo! is screwing with.  It's
also "on behalf of" services, including some that are more or less
entertainment ("to send this image to your friend, enter her email
address and yours"), and some that are the lifeblood of real
businesses (eg, invoicing services such as QuickBooks Online from
Intuit).[1]

 > The end result might be to simply drive them away, so I'm in favour
 > of getting their postings to the list somehow.

Fine.  I'm just saying what *I* am in favor of.  Yahoo!'s tech staff
has admitted that they're doing this because it serves their purpose
and because nobody can stop them, not because they believe it
generally improves the quality of life on the Internet.  They under-
stand that they're degrading service to their own users and many
innocent third parties in order to patch up a security breach that
they have not been able to explain, maybe because they don't know, and
maybe because it would hurt their business to explain.

IMO, friends don't let friends use Yahoo!

YMMV of course.

Footnotes: 
[1]  @Jim P.  This is another reason why the word "transactional" has
become unpopular on the DMARC list -- Q.B.O. is an easy example of an
automated transactional service that "p=reject" interferes with.