On 13/07/2020 05:10, Dave Crocker wrote:
I've just submitted an initial draft to define an RFC5322.Author field:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-crocker-dmarc-author/
Dave,
since you also posted a second draft, I'd strike considerations about the
Sender: from this one. In particular, the 4th paragraph of the Introduction,
"Because the current [...]", is distracting and unhelpful.
I'd explicitly mention DMARC, rather than use circumlocutions mentioning
generic email protections which use the From: field.
Another use case of Author: is to indicate multiple authors. Like From: and
unlike Sender:, Author: supports a list of mailboxes. Since, DMARC filters
don't behave well with multi-address From:, using Author: can be a handy
alternative for those joint messages. In fact, the current spec says:
o Messages bearing a single RFC5322.From field containing multiple
addresses (and, thus, multiple domain names to be evaluated) are
typically rejected because the sorts of mail normally protected by
DMARC do not use this format;
I submitted ticket 74[*] to address the latter point, which is inconsistent as
either all or none of the mail belonging to a given domain is subject to DMARC
filtering. There is no way to define which sorts of mail is "normally
protected". The quoted rule deviously restricts the format of From:.
I'd support making that a WG I-D. IMHO, it could be standard track and modify
RFC 5322 if accepted.
Best
Ale
--
[*] https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/74
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
