On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:07 AM Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/24/2020 7:04 AM, Jesse Thompson wrote: > > On 6/23/20 1:49 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >> So... what if DMARC's semantic were really for the Sender: field? If a > message has no separate Sender: field, then of course the domain in the > From: field is used. > > Wouldn't MUAs need to consistently display Sender? > > They don't consistently display From: > > More importantly, MUAs are essentially -- or completely -- irrelevant to > the use of DMARC now. I don't see why that should change. > Sender: is completely irrelevant to the use of DMARC now. If we were to list all things irrelevant to DMARC now, it would be a very long list. As you have mentioned many times in the past, the burden is on the person making the assertion. You have not provided a compelling case that Sender: would be a more useful value to validate on than From:. We have substantial enough experience on the value of the use of From: and the only experience with Sender: (SenderID) was in essence a failure. > > Again: end-user recipient decision-making is irrelevant to meaningful > email abuse handling. > While this may in fact be true now, it may be a function of the presentation of the information to the end user rather than the content of the information itself. That being said, I agree that for purposes of DMARCbis, this should be considered out of scope absent some compelling data points. Michael Hammer >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
