On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:52 AM Dave Crocker <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> On 7/21/2020 8:48 AM, Jesse Thompson wrote: > > On 7/20/20 7:55 AM, Douglas E. Foster wrote: > >> I am advocating for MLMs to stop spoofing and make their peace with > DMARC. > > Maybe the recommendation should be that MLMs (or any ESP, for that > matter) should never send as a domain they do not directly own unless it's > authorized to send aligned mail as that domain. (I say this as I have a > distinguished PhD (not of CS) complaining to me that when he sends spoofed > email from his Gmail account the messages go into spam because of DMARC. > Why do these ESPs even allow it in the first place, putting the domain > owner's decision to adopt DMARC as the boogieman?) > > > This being a technical forum, we need to be careful and precise about > terminology and history and, well, quite a bit more. > > The mail is not spoofed. Consider the definition of the word. Then > consider that the MLM is authorized by the user with the address in the > original From field. > > This is an interesting statement and raises a question.. Does a user have the authority to authorize (some) use of a domain in a manner contravening the express statement (p=reject) of the domain owner/administrator? I'm going to have to say no. > Also then consider that the existing MLM behavior has existed and been > useful for roughly 45 years. > > Slavery existed for a long time (still does in some places) and was useful (for some) for a long time. Things change and evolve. > The problem, here, is DMARC's imposing a change in email semantics. > If that is the problem, why did you participate in the original DMARC effort? The issue was clear even back then. Michael Hammer
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
