On 17 Jun 2020, at 13:27, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 6/17/2020 9:56 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
No, the semantics of From: have not changed generally. It's that some
mailing lists have to change the semantics of From: in the face of
the inability of DMARC to express the semantics that they want.
On 6/17/2020 9:56 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
No, the semantics of From: have not changed generally. It's that some
mailing lists have to change the semantics of From: in the face of the
inability of DMARC to express the semantics that they want.
The two sentences seem to be in conflict. If
In article <0f22234a-5a43-4473-8e67-b76c01cda...@episteme.net> you write:
>No, the semantics of From: have not changed generally. It's that some
>mailing lists have to change the semantics of From: in the face of the
>inability of DMARC to express the semantics that they want. ...
I'm with Pete
On 6/17/20 4:23 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Mon 15/Jun/2020 20:27:08 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On Monday, June 15, 2020 2:19:22 PM EDT Jesse Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> Even if you ignore my line of reasoning, I think that Ale made in the OP a
>>> compelling case that the practice of From
On 17 Jun 2020, at 4:23, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
There are a few shortcomings of From: rewriting, which could be
mitigated adopting suitable conventions. For example, MUAs' replying
to author, or storing rewritten addresses in address books.
As soon as you start down that path, you have
On 6/16/2020 2:19 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
So you think we should include
https://wiki.asrg.sp.am/wiki/Mitigating_DMARC_damage_to_third_party_mail in
the actual spec?
In essence, with IETF review to update, clarify, extract parts,
simplify, I think there are elements that are candidates as a
On Mon 15/Jun/2020 20:27:08 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Monday, June 15, 2020 2:19:22 PM EDT Jesse Thompson wrote:
Even if you ignore my line of reasoning, I think that Ale made in the OP a
compelling case that the practice of From rewriting is here to stay.
As a practical matter, that's
