Hello everyone,
I would like to make a request for a discussion to my article with the title
"Internet Protocol version 10" (IPv10), so we can all participate on how it
will be useful for the Internet.
I recommend that all of you to check out this link for some details regarding
IPv10 before starting the discussion.
Here is the link: http://internetprotocolv10.blogspot.com.eg/
[http://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-afIbXfZBwQk/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAEg/SUR3VWtMfjU/s80-c/photo.jpg]<http://internetprotocolv10.blogspot.com.eg/>
Internet Protocol version 10
(IPv10)<http://internetprotocolv10.blogspot.com.eg/>
internetprotocolv10.blogspot.com.eg
Khaled Omar is a Network and Systems Engineer with 8+ years of experience in
the implementation of network infrastructure, installation of systems and
implementation ...
________________________________
From: ietf <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> on behalf of Franck Martin
<franck(_at_)peachymango(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2016 9:41 PM
To: Terry Zink
Cc: dmarc(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; IETF
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Identification of an email author (was - Re: IETF
Mailing Lists and DMARC)
The EAI WG found it was fine to remove the obligation to have an email address
part in the mandatory RFC5322.From header, leaving only the display part to
assert the original author.
So it seems that "IETF" is not completely in agreement on how to preserve the
original author in emails.
So I think the example showed by Terry is as good as what is in EAI and this
is a matter of taste and UI designs, UI design and functions that usually the
IETF avoids to deal with...
________________________________
From: "Terry Zink" <tzink(_at_)exchange(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com>
To: "Ted Lemon" <mellon(_at_)fugue(_dot_)com>
Cc: dmarc(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org, "IETF" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2016 2:54:33 PM
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Identification of an email author (was - Re: IETF
Mailing Lists and DMARC)
If you hit "Reply-All", at least when I use Gmail, it includes both the From:
and the Reply-To using the scheme below (I tested it out just now). In Outlook
desktop I have to also copy/paste the From: address (mailing list). It's not
ideal in Outlook desktop, but I can live with it.
In this email discussion, I hit Reply-All and includes Ted on the To:, and
dmarc(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:dmarc(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> and
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> on the cc.
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:mellon(_at_)fugue(_dot_)com]
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2016 2:23 PM
To: Terry Zink <tzink(_at_)exchange(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com>
Cc: dmarc(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; IETF <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Identification of an email author (was - Re: IETF
Mailing Lists and DMARC)
On Nov 4, 2016, at 4:21 PM, Terry Zink
<tzink(_at_)exchange(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com<mailto:tzink(_at_)exchange(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com>>
wrote:
And if there were something like this in other headers that retains the
original senders:
Reply-To:
originalSender(_at_)example(_dot_)com<mailto:originalSender(_at_)example(_dot_)com>
Sender: dmarc
<dmarc-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:dmarc-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>>
I don't think this is quite right-I think the Reply-To needs to include all of
the senders or else every reply will be an off-list reply (would cut down on
noise, admittedly). Otherwise this would be a great solution. But because
of the way it interacts with MUAs, I do not think it would work in a way that
doesn't violate the principle of least surprise.
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
