On April 20, 2023 4:18:08 PM UTC, Dotzero wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 11:38 AM John Levine wrote:
>
>> It appears that Alessandro Vesely said:
>> >IMHO at least an appendix should say that if you can't do anything better
>> you
>> >have to rewrite From: with examples of legitimate
Murray's ATSP proposal (https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6541.txt) and Hector's
DSAP proposal (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-santos-dkim-dsap-00) have a
similar goal: Allow "Domain2" to send authenticated messages for
"Domain1".
This is authorized when
- the message is signed by
> On Apr 19, 2023, at 10:29 PM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
>
> The choice for both the mailing list and mail-service company is to:
>
> 1) ignore DMARC and continue to emit mail as the original author intended
> (the author might be ignorant of DMARC too) and assume the mailbox providers
> are
On 4/20/2023 6:34 AM, Douglas Foster wrote:
If a vendor wants to serve a customer, he needs to provide a product
that the customer can use. I don't see that it is IETFs problem to
worry about a vendor with an inadequate email platform, especially
since DMARC has been around awhile.
But I
On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 11:38 AM John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Alessandro Vesely said:
> >IMHO at least an appendix should say that if you can't do anything better
> you
> >have to rewrite From: with examples of legitimate display-phrase,
> expanding a
> >bit the first bullet in Section
It appears that Alessandro Vesely said:
>IMHO at least an appendix should say that if you can't do anything better you
>have to rewrite From: with examples of legitimate display-phrase, expanding a
>bit the first bullet in Section 11.4. That can also be a good place to
>explain
>the kind of
If a vendor wants to serve a customer, he needs to provide a product that
the customer can use. I don't see that it is IETFs problem to worry about
a vendor with an inadequate email platform, especially since DMARC has been
around awhile.
But I have been thinking further about the constrained
