On 6/23/20 9:19 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 6/23/2020 4:14 PM, Jim Fenton wrote: >> I do have a concern about Sender:. It has existing semantics defined in >> RFC 5322 Section 3.6.2, and this proposal might conflict with that > > > I don't think it conflicts at all. So it will help for you to explain > your concern in detail.
Quoting RFC 5322 Section 3.6.2: > For example, if a secretary were to send a message for > another person, the mailbox of the secretary would appear in the > "Sender:" field and the mailbox of the actual author would appear in > the "From:" field. and > If the from > field contains more than one mailbox specification in the mailbox- > list, then the sender field, containing the field name "Sender" and a > single mailbox specification, MUST appear in the message. In the latter example, the From: header field could contain addresses from different domains, and the Sender: header field would indicate which of them actually sent the message. If either message in question goes to a mediator, the Sender address in the original message would be lost and replaced by the email address of the mediator, and the original information would be lost. I'm not sure if that's a significant problem in practice, but pointing out the possible conflict with currently specified usage. Please explain why it is important that specifically the Sender: header field be used for this. -Jim
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
