On Wednesday, April 01, 2015 4:35 PM [GMT+1=CET], Anne Bennett wrote: > J. Gomez <[email protected]> writes: > > > a "technically appropriate" technical solution yes there is: > > "Every resender[ *] who invalidates the original Author's DKIM > > signature must take ownership of the Header-From and re-sign > > the message". Simple. Easy. But socially unacceptable (for > > now, at least) because of the expectations of several legacy > > mail usages. > > If by "expectations of several legacy mail usages" you mean > "reasonable expectations of well-established mail usages", > and not "unreasonable expectations of nearly-obsolete mail > usages", then sure. :-) > > So having granted that the above proposed solution is > unacceptable, how can we move on to find an acceptable solution?
It is an "unacceptable" solution, for now at least because of the incumbency said legacy mail usages still hold. If no better "solution" is found now when formalizing DMARC, I guess the slow but unstoppable dynamics of reality will decide the matter for us in about 10 or 15 years (much as SPF needed a lot of time to be generally used and nowadays more and more people are publishing "-all"). Regards, J.Gomez _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
