Mr. Crocker, is there a document that describes some of these proposals and perhaps the best arguments for an against somewhere? The firehose of learning would a bit easier if there were a FAQ. I think it might even help the participants if this was all documented. Yes, I know there's the archived but I mean an organized and linear doc.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 8:32 PM Dave Crocker <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote: > > >> I was quite surprised -- at the level of astonished -- to see the > >> pushback on the Author header-field proposal, since it is such a simple > >> and straightforward mechanism. > > > > The different bits in the message are simple enough. > > > > The problem is that it might as well be called Really-From, and then > > Your opening item is that you don't like the name of the field? > > In any event, I suggested "Author" because it is simple and accurate. > Something like what you suggest - on the off-chance you are serious -- > offers distracting tone and baggage. > > > > when enough systems do mutant DMARC to cause the same problems with > > Really-From that we have with From, > > That's a premise with no foundation and arguably no validity. > > At the least, if you are going to use this as the substance of your > concern, perhaps you could explain with some care why you are so certain > this will happen. > > Here's why I think it won't: They already have From:. > > The real value in DMARC is not what is displayed to the end-user but in > having a required field that cites the originating domain name. That > doesn't change if there are additional fields that might or might not > mention the originating domain. > > > > the step after that is > > Really-Really-From, so on ad nauseam. While that happens (or maybe > > doesn't) we have no idea whether MUAs will display it or let you enter > > The question of whether any MUAs will implement this is the same concern > for any proposal. So on its own, that would mean we never do anything > unless implementers and operators promise to use it. Absent an IETF > formal policy to that end... > > > > it or automatically make it the same as From or maybe something else, > > likely making it a disaster for interoperability. > > > > I think the DMARC sender draft is a lot more promising. > > It has it's own problems. > > There's no perfection here, since the task is retro-fitting work-arounds > to an established mechanism that has been altered. As I've noted, > realistically, DMARC makes the From: field be the Sender: field. > > d/ > > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
