----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rolf E. Sonneveld" <r.e.sonnev...@sonnection.nl> > To: "John Levine" <jo...@taugh.com>, dmarc@ietf.org > Cc: superu...@gmail.com > Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 3:21:33 PM > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Indirect Mail Flow Solution Utility Analysis > > Now I think Scott is right that we need to make a step back and his > analysis might help us to know on which solutions we'd best spend most > of our time. However, having said that, I'm afraid that we're biased by > our discussions around the 'DMARC/Mailing List problem'. Let's not > forget the other use cases of draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability. > > I believe a number of the Mediators, described in par. 3.2 of > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-01, cannot > easily be changed. To give an example: recently when I was working for > company A, I forwarded an invitation I got from company B to one of my > addresses at ESP C. I just used the Exchange/Outlook forward function at > company A and discovered that the mail client I used at ESP C showed the > address of company B, no the address I have with company A. Company A is > using Exchange/Outlook 2010 and has no plans to upgrade for the next > couple of years. Should Microsoft update Exchange to support some > mediator 'change' for DMARC, then this probably won't be 'retrofitted' > into Exchange 2010. So it may take many years before I can use a version > that supports DMARC 'mediation'. > Personally, I consider this a bug, because it looks like to C that B invited him/her, while it was A that did.
This bug is on the wiki, but it falls under the "Message Forwarding" section, not sure we need to spell it out there, but it is not uncommon. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
