[Mailman-Users] 2.1.18 internal documentation suggestions

[Mark Sapiro]

On 05/01/2014 09:26 PM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> 
> If first_strip_reply_to = No there are two possible situations which
> aren't covered in your (much improved!) self-doc.  Either the original
> poster included a Reply-To:, or not.  If not, then I assume the original
> From: address is put into the Reply-To: address. Yes?


Yes.


> If the original
> poster included a Reply-To: address then DMARC forces us into a
> situation in which we can't avoid information loss.  Either the poster's
> Reply-To: is overwritten with the original From:, or the original
> Reply-To: is retained and the original From: address is lost.  Which is
> it?


Neither. The poster's From: address is merged with the other addresses
in the original Reply-To:. I.e. The Poster's From: address will be there
as will all the other addresses in the original Reply-To:, but there
will be no duplicates.

What do I need to change to make this clear. Note that earlier under the
Munge From action, it says "... and adds the poster's address to the
Reply-To: header" and under the Wrap Message action it says "with the
original From: address added to the Reply-To: header".

So it seems clear to me that we're *adding* the From: address to
Reply-To: and the only question is how does first_strip_reply_to affect
this, and the answer is if it's Yes, the Reply-To: we're adding to was
stripped and is empty, and if No we're adding to the original. Do I have
to repeat that last bit further down?

Maybe instead of "the Reply-To: header" in the two action statements, I
should say "the addresses in the original Reply-To: header". I.e. "...
and adds the poster's address to the addresses in the original Reply-To:
header" and "with the original From: address added to the addresses in
the original Reply-To: header". Does that help?

-- 
Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net>        The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, California    better use your sense - B. Dylan