Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [mailing list] No Reply-To in messages?
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-27 08:22:00

On 03/27/17 04:29, Agustín Bergé via Boost wrote:
> On 3/26/2017 8:58 PM, Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Andrey Semashev
>> <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Niall Douglas via Boost
>>> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>>> Still, I've never had this problem with the previous infrastructure.
>>>>> Maybe the email clients tend to not send the second email to the From
>>>>> address when there is Reply-To. For example, the std-discussion and
>>>>> std-proposals mailing lists use this scheme:
>>>>> From: real original sender address
>>>>> To: mailing list address (e.g. "std-discussion_at_[hidden]"
>>>>> <std-discussion_at_[hidden]>)
>>>>> Reply-To: mailing list address (e.g. std-discussion_at_[hidden])
>>>>> No Cc headers.
>>>>> Can we use this scheme?
>>>> That was the previous scheme which caused the DMARC failure because
>>>> DMARC won't allow this ML to send email From: an address it does not own.
>>> Well, I'm not sure I understand the details, but I can see the
>>> problems with DMARC were resolved for lists at some point:
>>> And I can see that now the emails from those lists contain the
>>> original sender address in the From header. I'm not sure how exactly
>>> that was achieved, but I would like this list behave the same way.
>> Ping?
> The mailing lists for std-discussion and std-proposals are not run by
> but by google groups. The ones affected by DMARC were the
> WG21 lists.

Oh, I thought Herb was referring to std-discussion and std-proposals.

In any case, I'm assuming these list don't have the DMARC problem
because the messages contain "Received-SPF: pass ..." header.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at