On Mon 15/Jun/2020 20:27:08 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Monday, June 15, 2020 2:19:22 PM EDT Jesse Thompson wrote:
Even if you ignore my line of reasoning, I think that Ale made in the OP a
compelling case that the practice of From rewriting is here to stay.
As a practical matter, that's certainly true for the short to medium term, but
it doesn't follow that the IETF should standardize the practice.
There are a few shortcomings of From: rewriting, which could be mitigated
adopting suitable conventions. For example, MUAs' replying to author, or
storing rewritten addresses in address books.
As evidenced in the page cited[*], methods 1.* are characterized by being MLM
side workarounds[†]. That is, they can be applied unilaterally, without
collaboration nor mutual support. A state of affairs dictated by the lack of
standardization.
Now, if we make a semantic effort, we must recognize that the address of From:
as a matter of fact refers to the "managing editor" of the corresponding mail
flow, whereas the display name may indicate the actual author. To say nothing
of the Sender: field, which wasn't designed for that role anyway. That's how
email has evolved after introducing authentication. I'd hope rfc5322bis will
recognize those changes. Meanwhile, if we gather consensus on how to do it
better, it'd be fair to write it down, no?
Best
Ale
--
[*] https://wiki.asrg.sp.am/wiki/Mitigating_DMARC_damage_to_third_party_mail
[†] Hm... except for 1.9 TPA. It should be moved downward, methinks.
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
