> This list saves From: in X-Original-From:. It'd cost nothing to switch to > Author: instead. The arc list, however, saves it by appending to Reply-To:. > The point is to agree on a field name. Author: seems the most promising one. > > Now, everybody complains about how From: munging ruined their habits. Yet, > the > minimal effort required to restore it is deemed out of the question. It sound > like a tantrum, an excuse to hold that DMARC ruined the MHS and MUST NOT be > used.
Yeh, I have to take serious issue with this: It's not a "tantrum" to say that it's not reasonable to require all mailing list software and every mailing list in the world to change what's worked for decades in order to work around a problem caused by use of a new standard in a way that new standard wasn't designed to be used. I want to see the Proposed Standard version of DMARC to make it abundantly and normatively clear what the intent of p=reject is and when it should and should not be used (whether that be at a SHOULD NOT or MUST NOT level is something we need to decide). It's not a tantrum; it's how we write standards: we avoid having them break long-established use whenever we can. Barry _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
