ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc)

2014-07-15 05:54:11
----- Original Message -----
From: "Viktor Dukhovni" <ietf-dane(_at_)dukhovni(_dot_)org>
To: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 4:33 AM
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:11:58PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:

This is a solved problem, the "Rfc822.Sender" field should have
from the outset trumped the "Rfc822.From" field when determining
message origin, and the DMARC policy should be that of the
"Sender"
domain.  Some MUAs already expose "Sender != From" by displaying
"From <sender> on behalf of <author>".  This needs to become
standard
MUA behaviour.

I am coming around to the point of view.

Thanks for the moral support.  Message origin is subtle business.
In addition to "Sender" which is used by mailing lists and other
proxy agents, there is also "Resent-From" and friends.  I am rather
partial to "forwarding" messages not in-line or as attachments,
but as "resent" messages.

MUAs should expose message origin when different from author.


Viktor,

A fine idea, but, as a pragmatic engineer, I know that changes to an MUA
will take five, may be ten, years to achieve widespread deployment,
whereas changes to MTA could happen in a matter of weeks, if needs must.

Tom Petch



FWIW, the text is from the proposed charter, I didn't write any of
it.

Yes, of course.

--
Viktor.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>