On 3/21/2015 9:41 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Dave Crocker writes:
>
> > From: happens to be the only place that always has the presence of a
> > domain associated with the origin.
>
> Except it doesn't always have a domain associated with the originating
> MTA,
Well, I said 'origin' and
>> How big is the volume of DMARC-problematic indirect email flows, compared
>> to the general volume of email which can readily benefit from DMARC?
The numbers I've seen say that the volume of mail that DMARC screws up
is fairly low, but it is very high value.
Personally, I would be happy never
Dave Crocker writes:
> From: happens to be the only place that always has the presence of a
> domain associated with the origin.
Except it doesn't always have a domain associated with the originating
MTA, and there's nothing in RFC 5322 that says it does. RFC 5322 says
you shouldn't put an add
As a long time total mail system product(s) developer, at this point,
IMV, we have a marketing problem.
We did have technical solutions laid out with 3rd party authorization
concerns. However, it hasn't been "sold enough" and if even if you
do work it, you have to champion it. One can't wr
On 3/21/2015 12:23 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> In particular, it does not matter what user's 'see'. The information is
> processed by a filtering agent, independent of the user.
>
> So what matters is that the From: field domain is the
> only field certain to be pro
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 3/19/2015 12:52 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > And since the From field is the only one users really see every time,
> > I'm not sure that declaring and supporting yet another
> > no-seriously-this-is-the-author field would be of benef
