On Mon 27/Sep/2021 21:42:48 +0200 John Levine wrote:
It appears that Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> said:
There is a case (d) final receiver enforcea DMARC and ARC, but the
forwarder is not among its ARC-trusted senders.
The simple solution if From: rewriting.
I think you misspelled "ugly kludge" there.
https://wiki.asrg.sp.am/wiki/Mitigating_DMARC_damage_to_third_party_mail#Replace_address_with_a_generic_one
Note that forwarders should always rewrite the bounce address, for SPF.
Mailing lists put on their own bounce addresses so they can do bounce handling.
They've been doing that for about 40 years. That's not a kludge, that's how
mailing lists work.
I agree that replacing the bounce address has a VERP logic which predates SPF.
In addition, it doesn't interfere with MUA displaying. So, yes, it's less
ugly, but it's still a kind of kludge.
By design, DMARC forced the semantics of From:. It traded purism for efficacy.
Some ugliness has to be in the bargain too.
From: rewriting is a kludge, and it's how mailing lists work.
The whole point of ARC is so that lists and other forwarders *don't* have to do
ugly kludges
so I don't understand the point of this discussion.
With ARC you have to distinguish cases (a), (b), (c), and (d). There is no
method (yet) to tell beforehand whether it's going to work at a given receiver.
Even if there was one, you should still consider the case that the subscribed
address will be forwarded to yet another receiver.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
