Let me quote this from the ietf-smtp mailing list: On Sat 30/Nov/2019 00:12:53 +0100 John C Klensin wrote: > --On Friday, 29 November, 2019 11:16 -0600 Pete Resnick wrote: > [...] >> Even the "From: rewriting" issue is >> a gatewaying issue, not a message format issue per se. > > That is less clear. It fits into the gray area that has existed > for years about just exactly what a mailing list exploder / > redistribution system really is. We've traditionally threaded > that needle by saying that, if the message is simply > redistributed, without messing with content (or headers other > than trace ones), then it is an SMTP matter, and that is what > 5321 talks about. If more drastic changes are needed, the story > we have told is that the mailing list mechanism is acting as the > agent for the mailing list manager and really more like a > specialized MUA. I don't need to remind you about this, but > that it the main reason 5322 specifies "Resent-" header fields > and 5321 at least implicitly forbids true, MTA-level exploder > from messaging with them. So, as I say, not clear. And, fwiw, > an argument that anything rewriting a "From:" field should be > identifying itself in Resent- header fields.
I, and probably many others, agree with that, as it describes the current state of affairs smoothly. Shouldn't we translate it into a WG RFC? A "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) and Mailing Lists" thing, similar to rfc6377, possibly shorter. Best Ale -- _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
