If DMARC settles on Sender, what tool will validate the relationship between Sende and From?
On Jun 24, 2020 2:53 PM, Dave Crocker <dcroc...@gmail.com> wrote:On 6/24/2020 11:35 AM, Jim Fenton wrote: > 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. Not 'which of them', but 'who'. The point of the second quoted text is to mandate a separate Sender:, when the From: contains more than one address. But it does not specify a different semantic for Sender: > 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. > One can indeed imagine a scenario where it matters, but no, it's not likely. In any event, the mediator is posting a new message and has a 'right' to retain or modify whatever it wishes. So if this is the 'conflict' you see, I'll disgree. Rather: Replacing Sender: is vastly better than modifying From:. That's the entire motivation for my suggesting DMARC switch to Sender:. > Please explain why it is important that specifically the Sender: > header field be used for this. > From: is demonstrably problematic. Sender: isn't. Sender: is a long-standing field, similar to From:, but without it's history of interesting MUA-level use that DMARC is well-established as creating problems for. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
