Hey, On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 18:51 +0200, Benjamin BILLON via dmarc-discuss wrote: > From a very pragmatical point of view, the From header is the one the > recipient sees first ; the additional "via" or "sent on behalf of" could be > anything that the recipient might not know or understand, therefore making > the whole point of DMARC useless.
Yes, but I think this is too pragmatic. And maybe we have to trust in MUAs to do their job correctly (and better), if we want DMARC/DKIM to work properly. > Now, if I recall properly, the Sender header was imagined so secretaries > could send emails "on behalf of" a director (at least that's the examples > in the RFC), and what ESPs conveniently did with the Sender header was > probably not in mind of the RFC authors. Strictly speaking I'd see a listserver as a secretary of all users. Also this was only an example in the RFC. RFC 822 tells: > This field contains the authenticated identity of the AGENT > (person, system or process) that sends the message. So the authors even thought about processes sending mails for users. The more I think about it, the more I see Sender as the correct header, not From. Thank you, prauscher _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
