Re: ** NOTICE ** edk2-devel mailing list configuration changes

["Kinney, Michael D" <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>]

Leif,

I have enabled a different configuration setting 
that should be better.

Please try some emails and let me know if there
are any impacts.

The reason for these changes is the DMARC related
issue that occurred on 10-19-2018 that required a
number of users to be disabled.  The goal of these
changes is to enable those users to be re-activated.

Thanks,

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leif Lindholm [mailto:leif.lindholm@linaro.org]
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 12:54 PM
> To: EDK II Development <edk2-devel@lists.01.org>
> Cc: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>;
> Cetola, Stephano <stephano.cetola@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [edk2] ** NOTICE ** edk2-devel mailing list
> configuration changes
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 06:42:44PM +0000, Kinney,
> Michael D wrote:
> > Some configuration changes have been made to
> > the edk2-devel mailing list to handle posts from
> > a domain with a DMARC Reject/Quarantine policy
> > enabled. If this is detected then the from address
> > is now munged.
> >
> > One side effect of this setting is that the
> > behavior of Reply has changed.  Instead of being
> > a reply to the poster of the message, the Reply
> > address is the edk2-devel mailing list.
> 
> The behaviour looks somewhat broken, since as far as I
> can tell,
> replies now longer include the person you're replying
> to.
> (This doesn't happen when replying specifically to
> _you_, because you
> cc yourself on everything).
> 
> > If you wish to send a private reply to only the
> > poster of the message, you may have to perform
> > some manual steps.
> >
> > Please let me know if you have any concerns about
> > these changes or if these configuration changes
> > cause any other side effects.
> 
> Can we make sure the person being replied to is at least
> on cc?
> Otherwise, we've just broken the workflow for anyone
> filtering on
> whether they are on "to" or "cc".
> 
> Why was this change necessary?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Leif