Hello all.

I cannot stop thinking that the push-back against MLMs rewriting the 
Header-From is akin to the push-back of about 28 years ago from some people 
against the move to consider SMTP open-relays harmful.

Closing SMTP open-relays impedes open and unrestricted email communication, 
they said, and it was true. Having SMTP open-relays is the way it has always 
been done, they said, and it was true. SMTP open-relays embody the original 
spirit and intent of the Internet, they said, and it was true.

But the reality is that there was a very bad problem in the real world, it was 
spam, and something had to be done about it. And it was done, and SMTP 
open-relays were eventually closed, and many people had to go through the 
process of adjusting to the new email scenario.

Now we hear that MLMs using the original remote sender in the Header-From is 
the way it has always been done, and it is true, that using the original remote 
sender in the Header-From is more useful for the final recipient, and it is 
true, that using the original remote sender in the Header-From is embodied in 
the Ten Commandments of the olden RFC, and it is true.

But, also now, the reality is that there is a very bad problem in the real 
world, it is phishing, and something as to be done about it. And it has been 
proposed, and works well to combat it, and its name is DMARC.

So will DMARC be the new "no-open-relays reality" of the email scene, and get 
adopted, even if that entails changing old email habits?

I hope so, and I hope that those who are collateral damage to DMARC finally 
adapt to the new email scenario -- for example, accepting to rewrite the 
Header-From in their MLMs traffic.

Crazy analogy? Apt analogy?

(I am already wearing my asbestos suit, so feel free to fire at your 
discretion.)

Regards,
J.Gomez



_______________________________________________
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss

NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms 
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)

Reply via email to