On Fri 28/Apr/2023 05:14:16 +0200 Jesse Thompson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 9:54 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On April 28, 2023 2:49:48 AM UTC, Jesse Thompson <z...@fastmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 9:40 PM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 10:44 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Also, state that serious consideration includes testing p=quarantine; pct=0^H
t=y.
I was going to say something similar but I think that it is implied by section
A.7
Actually, I like referencing A.7 here as a pointer.
This achieves consensus on the rewrite objection.
A.7 describes the rewrite without condoning it:
[citation elided]
Good note. I think it's called /lapsus calami/ when one ends up writing
something which wasn't supposed to be uttered. "The phenomena can be traced
back to incompletely suppressed psychical material, which, although pushed away
by consciousness, has nevertheless not been robbed of all capacity for
expressing itself" to cite Freud.
I think we can describe what people are doing without placing a strong value
judgement on it, but I think we have to say we haven't assessed all the
associated interoperability impacts of it and at least mention that 5321 says
not to do it.
Restricting the "MUST NOT" to the context of 5321 achieves consensus, I think
RFC 5321 is not normative on that point. Section 3.9 says MLMs MUST change the
bounce address and SHOULD simply use the list. That's the only mustard in the
section. Changes to the header and the body are certainly not encouraged, but
the section ends saying:
There exist mailing lists that perform additional, sometimes
extensive, modifications to a message and its envelope. Such mailing
lists need to be viewed as full MUAs, which accept a delivery and
post a new message.
Now, *every* MUA I know rewrites From: when the user forwards a message.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
