On Friday, May 15, 2015 01:28:44 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
> G'day.
> 
> In looking for ways to make a DMARC-style function succeed when the
> message transits an intermediary, the current approach has mostly been
> proposing one or another wholesale solution.  This creates a complex
> space for discussion and tends towards some version of deadly embrace.
> 
> It might be helpful to consider /basic types/ of changes that are
> reasonable/unreasonable for intermediaries, distinct from how they might
> fit into an entire solution.
> 
> Reasonable vs. unreasonable pertain to at least two axes:
> 
>      1. Amount of work
> 
>      2. Policy/Principle
> 
> Some choices entail too much work or run afoul of basic operational
> policies.  Others might entail some work, but not too much, and might
> not be considered as significant violations of established policies.
> 
> Here be dragons, of course, but let's try to have the discussion anyhow.
> 
> Obviously, there will not be unanimity among all intermediaries, for any
> proposal.  So the question really is about plausible rough consensus
> among a 'substantial' amount of the community.
> 
> The first question is:  what are the 'types' of changes that have been
> or might be proposed?  This should turn into some sort of taxonomy,
> eventually, but for now an undisciplined core dump(*) of choices would
> be best.
> 
> Examples:
> 
>    Modifying the rfc5322.From display-name
> 
>    Modifying the rfc5322.From address
> 
>    Modifying the footer of the message body (first body-part.)
> 
>    Modifying the rfc5322.Subject preface
> 
>    Performing DMARC validation upon receipt
> 
>    Performing DKIM/SPF validation upon receipt
> 
>    DKIM-signing all outbound mail.
> 
>    Registering the intermediary with all potential sites posting to it
> 
>    Registering the intermediary with all potential sites receiving from
>    it
> 
> 
> 
> Your turn...

Performing prosepective DMARC validation on receipt to determine if mail would 
be subject to p=reject processing on the distant end if reransmited.

Scott K

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Reply via email to