From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Alan Hodgson <ahodgson(at)lists(dot)simkin(dot)ca> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: To all who wish to unsubscribe |
Date: | 2017-11-21 18:59:30 |
Message-ID: | 20171121185930.GU4628@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-www |
All,
* Alan Hodgson (ahodgson(at)lists(dot)simkin(dot)ca) wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-11-21 at 10:52 -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
> > it seems to *ME* like a simpler solution to the original problem
> > would have been to simply STRIP any DKIM out of the original
> > messages, and continue to munge headers and footers like mail
> > list
> > reflectors have been doing for decades.
>
> That wouldn't help; DMARC policies are based on the From: header. If
> you want to munge messages from DMARC-reject senders you need to
> replace the From: header with your own.
>
> Email doesn't work the same as it did decades ago. Senders need to keep
> up.
Please, let's take this debate elsewhere, it's not appropriate here. If
you'd really like to discuss further, you're welcome to email me
directly.
Thanks!
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John R Pierce | 2017-11-21 19:05:37 | Re: migrations (was Re: To all who wish to unsubscribe) |
Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2017-11-21 18:59:16 | Re: migrations (was Re: To all who wish to unsubscribe) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John R Pierce | 2017-11-21 19:05:37 | Re: migrations (was Re: To all who wish to unsubscribe) |
Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2017-11-21 18:59:16 | Re: migrations (was Re: To all who wish to unsubscribe) |