On 7/28/2020 4:00 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Tue 28/Jul/2020 12:37:32 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote:
On 7/28/2020 12:26 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Receivers can evaluate the Author: domain just like they would do if
it were the From: domain.
So you want to define DMARC as applying to both the From: field and
the Author: field? That will defeat the benefit intended for the
Author: field.
Yes. In case of conflict, evaluation of Author: has to be omitted. For
example, Author: fields containing multiple mailboxes are not considered.
1. I don't understand the details you have in mind that would make this
useful.
2. Again, this seems to defeat the purpose of having the Author field.
(OT-BTW, DMARC spec will have to consider From: fields with multiple
mailboxes, since they're allowed by RFC 5322. Should Sender:, in such
cases, have a domain aligned with one of those?)
My understanding is that DMARC does not work for From: fields with
multiple domain names. In that regard, that's another change to the
From: field that DMARC imposes.
As a new field, Author: doesn't wear a reliable-id trophy, hence
receivers may refrain to apply policy dispositions. However, the
result of the evaluation, conveyed through aggregate report, can tell
MLMs if rewriting From: was necessary.
How, exactly?
Author: and Sender: domains can be included in aggregate reports along
with the From: one. The policy_evaluated can also include more items,
specifying which evaluations pass or fail.
It will probably help for you to supply detailed specification of the
changes to DMARC's reporting, so people can assess its likely costs and
benefits more concretely.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
