Re: [dmarc-ietf] 5.7.1 - Mulitple FROM

On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 11:29 PM Douglas Foster < dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote: > I suggest that it is time to propose that RFC 5322 section 3.6.2 be > revised to drop support for multiple From fields. The market has clearly > spoken that there the feature is not needed. Every

Re: [dmarc-ietf] 5.7.1 - Mulitple FROM

Hi Doug, On Sat 11/Dec/2021 05:29:22 +0100 Douglas Foster wrote: I suggest that it is time to propose that RFC 5322 section 3.6.2 be revised to drop support for multiple From fields. As Scott noted, Emailcore mailing list is next door. The market has clearly spoken that there the feature

Re: [dmarc-ietf] 5.7.1 - Mulitple FROM

I suggest that it is time to propose that RFC 5322 section 3.6.2 be revised to drop support for multiple From fields. The market has clearly spoken that there the feature is not needed. Every MUA that I have used is designed to solicit From and Friendly Name as separate and single-occurrence

Re: [dmarc-ietf] 5.7.1 - Mulitple FROM

On Friday, December 10, 2021 2:45:29 PM EST John Levine wrote: > It appears that Scott Kitterman said: > >>apply the DMARC check using each of those domains found in the > >> > >>RFC5322 .From field > >> > >> as the Author Domain and

Re: [dmarc-ietf] 5.7.1 - Mulitple FROM

It appears that Scott Kitterman said: >>apply the DMARC check using each of those domains found in the >> >>RFC5322 .From field >> as the Author Domain and apply the most strict >>policy selected among the checks that fail. >> >> >>

Re: [dmarc-ietf] 5.7.1 - Mulitple FROM

On Friday, December 10, 2021 2:24:12 PM EST Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Friday, December 10, 2021 2:14:36 PM EST Alessandro Vesely wrote: > > On Fri 10/Dec/2021 19:58:48 +0100 Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > On Friday, December 10, 2021 1:46:34 PM EST Alessandro Vesely wrote: > > >> RFC5322

Re: [dmarc-ietf] 5.7.1 - Mulitple FROM

On Friday, December 10, 2021 2:18:47 PM EST Todd Herr wrote: > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 1:59 PM Scott Kitterman > > wrote: > > Ordering isn't guaranteed to be preserved. I think the options are: > > > > 1. Do not test for DMARC (current, no backward compatibility issues, but > > incomplete

Re: [dmarc-ietf] 5.7.1 - Mulitple FROM

On Friday, December 10, 2021 2:14:36 PM EST Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On Fri 10/Dec/2021 19:58:48 +0100 Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Friday, December 10, 2021 1:46:34 PM EST Alessandro Vesely wrote: > >> RFC5322 explicitly allows multiple mailboxes: > >> from= "From:"

Re: [dmarc-ietf] 5.7.1 - Mulitple FROM

On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 1:59 PM Scott Kitterman wrote: > > Ordering isn't guaranteed to be preserved. I think the options are: > > 1. Do not test for DMARC (current, no backward compatibility issues, but > incomplete coverage). > > 2. Test both and one must not fail (not clear if there are

Re: [dmarc-ietf] 5.7.1 - Mulitple FROM

On Fri 10/Dec/2021 19:58:48 +0100 Scott Kitterman wrote: On Friday, December 10, 2021 1:46:34 PM EST Alessandro Vesely wrote: RFC5322 explicitly allows multiple mailboxes: from= "From:" mailbox-list CRLF sender = "Sender:" mailbox CRLF To completely disallow

Re: [dmarc-ietf] 5.7.1 - Mulitple FROM

On Friday, December 10, 2021 1:46:34 PM EST Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On Fri 10/Dec/2021 05:11:28 +0100 Douglas Foster wrote: > > The language in the quoted document about "multiple from messages are > > usually rejected" was interesting. It reflects what I would intend to > > do, and what I

Re: [dmarc-ietf] 5.7.1 - Mulitple FROM

On Fri 10/Dec/2021 05:11:28 +0100 Douglas Foster wrote: The language in the quoted document about "multiple from messages are usually rejected" was interesting.   It reflects what I would intend to do, and what I think others should do, but I assumed that we could not explicitly advocate for

Re: [dmarc-ietf] 5.7.1 - Mulitple FROM

Thanks for your comments. The language in the quoted document about "multiple from messages are usually rejected" was interesting. It reflects what I would intend to do, and what I think others should do, but I assumed that we could not explicitly advocate for that, since we could be accused of

Re: [dmarc-ietf] 5.7.1 - Mulitple FROM

On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 3:27 AM Douglas Foster < dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have trouble with this statement in section 5.7.1: > > "Multi-valued RFC5322.From header fields with multiple domains MUST be > exempt from DMARC checking." > > This language will serve as an invite

Re: [dmarc-ietf] 5.7.1 - Mulitple FROM

It appears that Todd Herr said: >The entire paragraph from which that sentence was pulled reads: > >The case of a syntactically valid multi-valued RFC5322.From header field >presents a particular challenge. When a single RFC5322.From header field >contains multiple addresses, it is possible that

Re: [dmarc-ietf] 5.7.1 - Mulitple FROM

On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 6:27 AM Douglas Foster < dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have trouble with this statement in section 5.7.1: > > "Multi-valued RFC5322.From header fields with multiple domains MUST be > exempt from DMARC checking." > > This language will serve as an invite

[dmarc-ietf] 5.7.1 - Mulitple FROM

I have trouble with this statement in section 5.7.1: "Multi-valued RFC5322.From header fields with multiple domains MUST be exempt from DMARC checking." This language will serve as an invite for spammers to create multiple-from messages to ensure that they will evade DMARC. To avoid creating