On 7/13/2020 9:29 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
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.
Unfortunately, misunderstanding of the relevant human factors is often
introduced in discussions in this realm. People are remarkably
resistant to the behavioral facts on his, so, unfortunately, it needs
repeating.
I'd explicitly mention DMARC, rather than use circumlocutions
mentioning generic email protections which use the From: field.
I've learned to write specification for the long-term, notably trying to
avoid ephemeral references that won't apply years later. The proposal
here stands on its own. Motivated by DMARC issues, but I'd argue not
dependent on it.
Another use case of Author: is to indicate multiple authors.
That's supported by the draft spec, since it copied From: syntax.
I'd support making that a WG I-D.
Thanks.
IMHO, it could be standard track and modify RFC 5322 if accepted.
The mail header is extensible. Addition of header fields does not
require modifying the base specification.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
