f specific domains through DNS' solution which is
clearly the more thorough of the two I mentioned.
Charles A. Gregory
CEO
Possumdelight Technologies
char...@possumdelight.com
(678) 778-7200
"If it's time sensitive, e-mail AND call." - Charles Gregory
-Original Message-
From:
see anything but upside in doing
so; nobody has demonstrated a downside anyways. Yet I have no idea how such
decisions are made or the part that anyone plays here. I will review RFC 4407.
Thanks.
>Regards,
>John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY P
778-7200
“If it’s time sensitive, e-mail AND call.” - Charles Gregory
-Original Message-
From: dmarc On Behalf Of John R Levine
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2021 2:24 PM
To: Gren Elliot ; Kurt Andersen (b) ;
dmarc@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses
> Calconnect’
d domains" to a DNS entry?
That way at least you could specify legitimate alternate/authorized domains
that could still pass DMARC.
"other than desktop Outlook, MUAs do not show
the sender at all. Gmail and web Outlook don't."
I wish they would.
Charles Gregory
Sent from my T-
arles Gregory
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
Original message
From: Dave Crocker
Date: 3/24/21 1:27 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Ken O'Driscoll , Charles Gregory
Cc: IETF DMARC WG
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses
On 3/24/2021 4:54 AM, Ken O'Driscoll
I'm having trouble with DMARC prioritizing the From address over the Sender
address. Couldn't a future version at least allow this behavior to be modified
with the DNS entry or something?
I found my issue well articulated in the thread copied below and completely
agree with this gentleman.
