On Fri 19/Jun/2020 23:11:27 +0200 Pete Resnick wrote: > On 19 Jun 2020, at 15:07, Dave Crocker wrote: >> On 6/19/2020 12:02 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: >>> On 19 Jun 2020, at 13:38, Dave Crocker wrote: >>> >>>> But typical mediators are trying to maintain a sense and ability >>>> for the original author and the final recipient to experience an >>>> end-to-end message exchange. >>> >>> Yep. That's the point I was trying to make. >> >> Except you seem to be pressing this as essentially a requirement >> they have > > Ah, no, I think that's the crux of the misunderstanding: I was > responding to Alessandro, who I interpreted to be saying that *all* > mailing lists were, by definition, publishers, defining a publisher > like a newspaper, where the true author of the content are the folks > in the masthead, even though they acknowledge individual authors in > the by-line. I disagree with that view. Indeed, I think for most of > the mailing lists we have been referring to in this discussion, they > are not publishers in Alessandro's sense, but rather view themselves > as redistributors of author messages. As 5598 points out, there is > variance in how much "editing" is done by any given mailing list, but > again, for the discussion we've been having about how the From: field > should be used, we've been talking about mailing lists which do the > sort of minimal editing of messages.
First, although the emphasis was on publishers, I didn't mean *all* mailing lists. Options 1.2 (Turn off all message modifications) and 4.5 (Have author domains sign camera-ready posts), with all in-between variations (e.g. have users manually add the subject tag on new messages, or attach a footer) are all valid alternatives. And there may be more (for this list in particular, it'd be enough for me to convert the body to base64 before signing.) Second, looking closely a the roles, what all mailing list do is keeping the list of recipients. Authors have no say on that, albeit they can add a few "direct" recipients themselves. Defining the end points is an essential point in communication, which prevents from considering the authors as agents. Also consider that authors have to keep on-topic, or they'd get reproached by the chairs. > (For mailing lists that do more substantial editing, I may not be as > motivated to keep the From: field unchanged. If we get more deeply > into the discussion, it might be useful to start drawing more distinct > circles around types of mailing lists.) 100% agreed. We should also loosely consider that in most countries there are legal constraints which practically force the addition of a footer. There are "informal" mailing list which ignore that pressure. There will always also be mailing lists which ignore DMARC. I don't think the latter should be among the possibilities specified in a standard. >> That most seek to preserve essentially all of the author's text is >> fine, but whether and how much is more of a 'business' decision than >> a technical one. > > We appear to be in violent agreement, as the quip goes. Importantly, I > think we agree that if a mailing list decides to preserve the original > From: field, in an attempt to preserve all of the author's semantics, > they are not "doing it wrong", as Alessandro's message appears to claim. What is wrong is to wittingly break DMARC. I just try for rationale. Best Ale -- _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
