> On Mar 30, 2015, at 9:16 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull <[email protected]> wrote: > > Scott Kitterman writes: >> On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 05:00:43 AM Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > >>> Sure, but that's the tail wagging the dog. The point of DMARC is so >>> that people can put their addresses in From and be believed, not that >>> there are kludges to get your content past DMARC. > >> Presentation differs among MUAs, so it's hard to draw >> generalizations about how well that set of identities are presented >> to end users. > > I am not concerned here with presentation. This is about requirements > by the *originator*. Some originators think having their domain name > in From: matters, and life will be a lot easier for sysadmins if we > can find a way to let them put it there and still get the benefits of > DMARC.
Dear Stephen, A few providers at the IETF conference offered suggestions which might gain traction for reasons beyond those created by DMARC, such as XMPP gateways. Although having experience in reporting policy at scale, it seems providers creating issues for millions of users are equally unwilling to enhance policy feedback to mitigate DMARC's disruption of legitimate third-party services. An enhancement that was even offered on their behalf. Refusals along with a demand for hard data creates a barrier similar to doubt used to oppose global warming or tobacco controls. By impacting such a large number of users, DMARC prevents retaining From Header field as the role of Author. Only the Sender header field is able to offer DMARC's desired alignment requirements. There is already support in MUAs to intelligently combine Sender and From based on domain alignments, which would be adequate for mailing-lists limited to subscribed users. In the next few days, I'll post an I-D to expand on the basic idea about retaining and expanding discussion forums. Regards, Douglas Otis _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
