From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail-ej1-f53.google.com ([209.85.218.53]) by ewsd; Mon Sep 21 17:40:43 EDT 2020
Received: by mail-ej1-f53.google.com with SMTP id nw23so19834979ejb.4
        for <9front@9front.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 14:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
        bh=5HUJa5W0BwCP8tzVQ/8hFWM4v2df8oZH5tFUuUARdzU=;
        b=flea3SPGoomwLmCSedz739t3MJGiP1uGGLZBo6LmzoRaBvM57yYwA6Nhb0dmj5qW4m
         OyB4KXYSxPxPjIY9IAbTn2QuYecdMXcRjNMALohJ+kEmnL6tHpiFKDFb1hzFDTFH7GsJ
         CeaQjR3ay7bf65AB+yvbiYYjA8po9ROeJy2jnjaVX6iQYX2R30M281bXmd4jzqm6XC+c
         +ftKcZQmczo6OMoudbDCF4VtKFYw/MM0KERJ4/1BinROQElUh6PqKGg0ctta3QTGYQEV
         2K9YegspyfxpsejeIjIiDwMbFSTbUCt3N4sdexH8YSIdzhni8unvHZJkJN1Vna5Ql2aX
         bA3Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
         :message-id:subject:to;
        bh=5HUJa5W0BwCP8tzVQ/8hFWM4v2df8oZH5tFUuUARdzU=;
        b=GnnHuY26LNWGDO62ePWC3kdPpfhy2Vgb0VfjN/Wr7bedEC3muBLFO1cpIOUDFLZ+AT
         +3ZXxRriXV2IIZRx1bCFWVIgicATHJx2+Dq8JP+mGckI571er7B8q30UWMqvWhliIelu
         Vvresx3N4TAHvY9WqMsSakD9nnvtjPz9wKGNuPFACtSjMUFs2PUDdzxYzwy9YJGDwk2g
         BMO/sJ0HYtZ/iF70tCOA3mBpHWZa2lMCfgC4YEVVOKBKZ3FsbCqYO9SSFBfVhpplMmvJ
         +ulyyvuDobUib+S1Y4eyE8f0Pi6/xjN54ZG2elvDTaLPHbjDx5nUyTjx1L1+tWmzKOIn
         8tkw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53259tv5dclTkFDeI2njWi0x0trpOKMPTIke1SUW1Zfd/KmcgtOK
	GvYzvUp2QP02Ehm2DOo1y7nC3IpJemj+dKCEmYz9LOLS
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx595/0+YOwbVCYDPe0d9wumN4zjgWVw+Ys61WF7YKsJ9dpp/5tAeeKI2NvBSuLiZaEdtP9rNwqyAajBApcRIo=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:a002:: with SMTP id p2mr1437504ejy.399.1600724434015;
 Mon, 21 Sep 2020 14:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a17:906:29c2:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 14:40:33
 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <DB347C20-6274-4A1D-ABD1-7C56AD4B74DB@stanleylieber.com>
References: <8470F460DE71A2A9B26BF9B46F894E4F@eigenstate.org>
 <5F0A6AD0-ECFA-4383-B0F6-4C3EB0508B1B@stanleylieber.com> <CAFSF3XP7s2+8vvZuQhe_TOsk1UkmrUAcdA0vRsb7_aqLoR0u5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <DB347C20-6274-4A1D-ABD1-7C56AD4B74DB@stanleylieber.com>
From: hiro <23hiro@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 23:40:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFSF3XO0-agBe8GWcjNRvhtXn7tmDdP0Mkt_PsDiQEyA3RtfEA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [9front] test
To: 9front@9front.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: realtime self-signing NoSQL API 

best to ask these people: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailop@mailop.org

imo if dkim+dmarc becomes popular enough I do expect that we (mailing
list operators) should change our convention and stop mangling headers
like the subject, from, or body of the mail.

but this is also only viable if people don't continue to use spf +
dmarc (!=none) without valid dkim, in the longer term. I'd say then
it's their own fault and there should be no way out provided by the
mailing list operator.

but i'd certainly wish that NONE of any above mentioned technologies
were used by anybody lest enforced. so definitely not desirable.

at this point i don't think there's a need for action. the early
adopters of strict dmarc setups deserve whatever punishment they are
experiencing for the upcoming while...