Hi, Steve. First, apologies last night if I was a bit peeved.
It's just that I really had put quite a lot of effort into making
sure Dyne.org people and the Dng community understood the problem,
and that my recommendation was to enable a least-bad mitigation
within GNU Mailman that 'munged' _only_ mail from domains that made the
(IMO, bad) choice to publish highly aggressive DMARC policies, not
out of any liking for Reply-To munging, but because there wasn't a
better alternative.

Quoting Steve Litt (slitt@???):

> So, if we insist on assisting Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail, and their ilk, and
> all their users, by incorporating DMARC at all, we could at least
> change the munge string from:
>
> Firstname Lastname via Dng <dng@???>
>
> to:
>
> GOES TO DNG (IRT Firstname Lastname)<dng@???>

Are you in the middle of submitting a patch to GNU Mailman, then? I'm
expect they will give it appropriate consideration, and give you expert
feedback (which, possibly, the rest of us will appreciate hearing).

OTOH, expecting Dyne.org people to hand-hack the local Mailman installation,
rather than trying to get it accepted by the developers, and not even
providing anyone with a patch, doesn't strike me as even a tiny bit
reasonable. And, gosh, I'm sorry to say you appear to be so suggesting,
which again, for the second night in a row, makes me a little sad.

Also, have you bothered to make sure you understand Mailman's
DMARC mitigation, before jumping in? I'm guessing 'nope'.

(Again, just to be crystal-clear, I myself am neither a Dyne.org
administrator nor a GNU Mailman developer, further underlining my point
about how you would be best advised to address the correct people with
your, um, semi-developed notions, and not the wrong ones.)