On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 6:04 AM Dave Crocker <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> On 8/12/2020 5:55 AM, Neil Anuskiewicz wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 5:13 AM Dave Crocker <d...@dcrocker.net > > <mailto:d...@dcrocker.net>> wrote: > > > > On 8/12/2020 4:45 AM, Neil Anuskiewicz wrote: > > > 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. > > > > > > > > If you have particular questions, ask them. > > > > > > I've just recently started lurking but I think this is a discussion > > about semantics. What to call a proposed RFC5322.Sender field. > > The reference to field name was for an alternative to the rfc5322.From > field, not sender. > > > > The problem being addressed is the munging of headers by mailing lists > > and other forwarders, breaking things like DKIM. > > mailing lists pretty much always break DKIM. One of the proposals is to > try to recover signature validation, post hoc. > > > I've not been lurking long enough to grok what's going on but I'll > > continue to lurk and learn, eventually finding a small way to contribute > > to this effort even if it's just to sweep out the IETF Ashram. :-) > > > Welcome aboard. > > Thank you. That was a warm welcome. The guy who recommended this list to me suggested I lurk for like a year or get eaten alive. IETF are more relaxed than I expected. > d/ > > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
