On Wed 10/Aug/2022 15:02:39 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote:
This list saves From: in X-Original-From:. It'd cost nothing to switch to
Author: instead. The arc list, however, saves it by appending to Reply-To:.
The point is to agree on a field name. Author: seems the most promising one.
Now, everybody complains about how From: munging ruined their habits. Yet, the
minimal effort required to restore it is deemed out of the question. It sound
like a tantrum, an excuse to hold that DMARC ruined the MHS and MUST NOT be
used.
Yeh, I have to take serious issue with this:
It's not a "tantrum" to say that it's not reasonable to require all
mailing list software and every mailing list in the world to change
what's worked for decades in order to work around a problem caused by
use of a new standard in a way that new standard wasn't designed to be
used.
I know it wasn't DMARC's intention. But it happened.
I want to see the Proposed Standard version of DMARC to make it
abundantly and normatively clear what the intent of p=reject is and
when it should and should not be used (whether that be at a SHOULD NOT
or MUST NOT level is something we need to decide). It's not a
tantrum; it's how we write standards: we avoid having them break
long-established use whenever we can.
I'd say SHOULD NOT. That way we gain plenty of space to explain why a bunch of
mailbox providers ignore that recommendation.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
