On 13/07/2020 19:27, Dave Crocker wrote:
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.
It'd be enough to say Sender: is syntactically and semantically different.
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.
Thank you.
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.
Restricting From: to be single-address, or at least having all domain parts
aligned to one another does require an updates= tag. Of course, ticket 74 has
to be addressed in dmarc-bis too, or one of its parts, since Alexey said we are
likely to split up the current document into multiple drafts. If the Author:
I-D is going to be one of those parts, it's be convenient to recap usage of
Originator Fields in the DMARC era in a single, short document.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
