Hellow Debian Hackers, According to <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5863#section-6.5>,
<quote: RFC 5863>
Service Providers:
A service provider can, as described above,
choose to sign outbound messages with either its own identity or
an identity unique to each of its clients (possibly delegated).
However, it can also do both: sign each outbound message with its
own identity as well as with the identity of each individual
client. For example, ESP A might sign mail for its client Company
B with its service provider signature d=espa.example, and a second
client-specific signature where d= either companyb.example or
companyb.espa.example. The existence of the service provider
signature could, for example, help cover a new client while it
establishes its own reputation, or help a very small volume client
who might never reach a volume threshold sufficient to establish
an individual reputation.
</quote>
So, i think the BTS system should go in this direction. Replacing the
RFC2822.From header for DMARC doesn't seem like a good idea. I don't
want to directly influence the BTS maintainer. They're incredibly busy
in real life. I'm worried my comments might be a burden, so i'll just
vent here on the debian-user forum. Ah, yes, this is off-topic.
More REFERENCEs: [1], [2], [3]
[1]
https://gitlab.com/soyeomul/Gnus/-/raw/6dc5b9c7addd736a537d51150d459d7dcbd480b5/stuff/rfc5863.eml
[2]
https://gitlab.com/soyeomul/Gnus/-/raw/6dc5b9c7addd736a537d51150d459d7dcbd480b5/stuff/rfc5863.png
[3] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=754809
Sincerely, Byunghee
--
^고맙습니다 _布德天下_ 감사합니다_^))//
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
