> -Original Message-
> From: Hector Santos [mailto:hsan...@isdg.net]
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 2:04 PM
> To: MH Michael Hammer (5304)
> Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Simple authorization offers reasonable control over
> messaging resources
>
On 5/15/2015 11:07 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
This is one of the reasons I have held back from participating in the
discussions/attempts to come up with authorizations for unrelated 3rd parties. Even
recognizing the resistance from various quarters, 3rd parties and intermediaries (
On 5/15/2015 11:07 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
Maybe, maybe not.
Sender is a RFC822 header (since the 80s). Its been around for a long time.
Our MLS added it along with the "Error-To" for MLM operations.
No option to disable that. I believe we stole the idea from the original
listse
> -Original Message-
> From: dmarc [mailto:dmarc-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hector Santos
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 9:09 AM
> To: dmarc@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Simple authorization offers reasonable control over
> messaging resources
>
> On
On 5/15/2015 2:27 AM, Terry Zink wrote:
The Sender header field when present has been defined for
decades to represent the sending agent!
Maybe, maybe not.
Sender is a RFC822 header (since the 80s). Its been around for a long
time. Our MLS added it along with the "Error-To" for MLM operatio
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:27 PM, Terry Zink
wrote:
> > The Sender header field when present has been defined for
> > decades to represent the sending agent!
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Outlook desktop client shows the Sender: header as
> " on behalf of <5322.from>", but neither Hotmail/outlook.com nor
it
go.
-- Terry
-Original Message-
From: dmarc [mailto:dmarc-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Douglas Otis
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 4:06 PM
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Simple authorization offers reasonable control over
messaging resources
On 5/14/15 4:54 AM, Murray
On 5/14/15 4:54 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:51 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull
> wrote:
>
>> > What gets added from here forward really needs to be as innocuous
>> > as possible. I believe we're in a position where things like SPF
>> > and DKIM are still young enough
