On Sun 26/Jul/2020 04:00:40 +0200 Dotzero wrote:
On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 9:48 AM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 12:05 PM Dotzero wrote:
I would like to see an agenda item as to whether work around "Display
Name" changes are in scope or out of scope for this effort and this working
group. It would seem to me that any such efforts are more appropriate for
the emailcore working group.
A quick read of the current charters suggests to me that it's in scope for
neither. That seems to be especially true for emailcore.
Do you have such a change to propose?
I was hoping for a ruling that such an effort be ruled out of scope for the
DMARC effort/working group and further discussions be limited by the Chairs.
As "Not Douglas E. Foster" (John Levine) noted, it is a free form field.
Although out of scope, I'd still propose that display name abuse be explicitly
mentioned in one of the specs as an out-of-scope problem that has to be solved
at a different level.
DMARC has been intended from the start to mitigate direct domain
abuse by 3rd parties. I'm hoping that the working group will make better
progress by focusing on issues specific to DMARC and not try boiling the
ocean by trying to "fix" all forms of abuse through this effort. Display
Name abuse is a broader problem that DMARC simply is not in a position to
address. This is especially true as most current implementations are at the
MTA and MUA providers are not visible among the participants in this
working group. My opinion is that trying to address this problem space in
this working group is somewhat like trying to push on a rope.
Let me add that, for the sake of Murray's dkim-transform, unlike subject tag
and footer additions which only need a couple of bits to be undone, display
name removal would require the full original header field, as in a (partial) z=
tag.
BTW, dkim-transform, along with From: rewriting, using To:, using Author:, and
giving up any modifications make for an effective solution of the MLM problem.
None of them belongs specifically to DMARC, albeit the spec could mention them.
Dkim-transform, in particular, looks like an update to RFC 6376. Yet, it might
be practical for this WG to adopt it. Shall we discuss that F2F?
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
