[Mailman-Users] Avoiding mangling in Mailman 3?

[Allan Hansen]

On Dec 10, 2019, at 10:27 , Stephen J. Turnbull <turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:

> 
> Allan Hansen writes:
> 
>> But Apple Mail puts the mangled address To: into the ‘Previous
>> Recipients’ list to help with auto-completion later.
> 
> I assume by "To" you mean "From”.

[ABH] Yes, sorry. It takes the “From:” address and saves that, instead of the
“ReplyTo:” address that is the new “To:” address.
> 
> I don't see how we can do anything reliable about that.  From is a
> *required* field in RFC 5322 message syntax, and it *must* contain a
> mailbox (perhaps along with a display name).  Some possibilities
> follow.

[ABH] The “From:” should contain the author address, but if we want to
keep our Yahoo/AOL subscribers…

> We could put an "oopsie, did you mean to send to us" address at the
> Mailman host in there that replies with explanation from Mailman, but
> when you don't have the list in Reply-To, people who *intend* a reply
> to list will have to copy/paste by hand (as mentioned earlier a link
> in the footer will not have the features of a client-composed reply).
> That might be OK for you, since you seem to really discourage replies
> to list.

[ABH] That’s not a bad idea, Stephen. I could try that. And yes, we are very
protective of our lists, so “Reply-To:” is the author address.
When I get Mailman 3 set up, I’ll put in an ‘oopsie’ address with
an auto-responder. I’ll assume that Mailman 3 will be able to detect
auto-responder infinite loops. :-)

> 
> Another try would be a Rule that checks for the "via list-at-this-
> server" formulation and automatically bounces the mail back
> (regardless of any "don't at me" settings), with an explanation of why
> the mail bounced and a suggestion to clean up Previous Recipients.
> You could simulate this with the existing spam hold feature, but I'm
> not sure that can be set to reject on a per recipe basis, and I don't
> think it would allow for the explanation to differ across rejections.
> 
> Of course that will fail if the user changes the display name.  What
> is your experience?  Do these users just accept the display name with
> "via list" attached, or do they tend to fix it while failing to notice
> the unintended address?  

[ABH] The disasters all have had the full mangled display name, so no editing
took place in those cases. I think the first suggestion above is better.

> 
>> I do tell people to clean up their ‘Previous Recipients’ list, they
>> eventually forget and this happens again.
> 
> You're a hero!  But this sucks for you.  The point of an advanced list
> manager is that you shouldn't have to do this kind of mechanical work.

[ABH] I’m trying to get out of it, as you can see. :-)

I very much appreciate your suggestions and help, and will let you 
and the list know how the autoresponder works out. I’m a bit red in the face
that I did not think of that, but what are friends for!

Yours

	Allan