> Good, we agree about this, but, I still think we need to lead with a carrot
> (new DMARC spec to solve the problem), and a stick (date at which we will
> comply to DMARC)
I can promise you that the large mail providers will say "that's nice" and
will not change the way they handle DMARC. They have a large investment
in it, and they see significant benefits rejecting actual forgery. The
number of bogus messages that DMARC rejects vastly outnumber the mistakes,
but unfortunately the mistakes are painful to us.
We have no leverage here. It's ARC or nothing.
> It's been like two years that I said the same thing.
>
> > My preferred approach until ARC is usable is to rewrite the From:
> > address to a legible forwarding address. The IETF already handles a
> > bazillion forwarding addresses for I-D and RFC authors, so I'd think it
> > wouldn't be terribly hard to adapt that. You don't have to change any
> > mailman code; you can do everything in a shim between the list manager
> > and the outgoing postfix submission program.
>
> I call this NAT for email.
Kind of, but it's 1-1 NAT where you can look at the NAT address and know
what the underlying address is, so you still see something useful in your
MUA's message list.
And if you have the tools, you can undo the damage.
I regard being able to undo whatever is done as a "must have".
Ned