Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 2:39 PM Charles Gregory wrote: > I DO think this is an unnecessary problem that CAN be fixed/improved in > one of two fairly straightforward manners through DNS (behavior switch or > list authorized alternate domains). And I can't see anything but upside in > doing so;

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

On Sat, 27 Mar 2021, Jim Fenton wrote: It sounds like they're asking DMARC to do things it doesn't do. If you can't ensure that everything sent with your domain on the From line is signed with your signature, you shouldn't publish a DMARC policy. Agreed, but in some cases, such as US

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

On 25 Mar 2021, at 11:23, John R Levine wrote: Calconnect’s TC-CALSPAM group is currently looking at this issue and yes, the reason is because of real world corporations that use multiple brands with different domains. Typically employees got a single email address on one of their domains

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

On Thu 25/Mar/2021 20:31:35 +0100 Charles Gregory wrote: Consider how this SHOULD work with email service providers to a small business. Emails should appear FROM CompanyA while the SENDER appears FROM MailChimp. These are legitimately separate concerns. Bounces go back to MailChimp for

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 5:53 PM John R Levine wrote: > >>> It is a problem when receiving servers use DMARC existence and > >>> pass/fail to increase/decrease deliverability rates. - And when > >>> Yahoo/AOL pretty much block everything you send - even with a 98 > >>> sender score, SPF, DKIM,

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

On 3/25/2021 2:23 PM, John R Levine wrote: While I am not opposed to a future tweak to DMARC to add some way to say that A can sign for B, even if we did it, it would be a long time if ever that DMARC verifiers implement it. RFC 6541 added a third-party signature option to DKIM in 2012, and

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

John R Levine Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2021 5:53 PM To: Charles Gregory ; Gren Elliot ; dmarc@ietf.org Subject: RE: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses >>> It is a problem when receiving servers use DMARC existence and >>> pass/fail to increase/decrease deliverability rates.

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

It is a problem when receiving servers use DMARC existence and pass/fail to increase/decrease deliverability rates. - And when Yahoo/AOL pretty much block everything you send - even with a 98 sender score, SPF, DKIM, and clean opt-in lists. Are they rejecting on DMARC failure because you're

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

>> It is a problem when receiving servers use DMARC existence and >> pass/fail to increase/decrease deliverability rates. - And when >> Yahoo/AOL pretty much block everything you send - even with a 98 >> sender score, SPF, DKIM, and clean opt-in lists. >Are they rejecting on DMARC failure

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

It is a problem when receiving servers use DMARC existence and pass/fail to increase/decrease deliverability rates. - And when Yahoo/AOL pretty much block everything you send - even with a 98 sender score, SPF, DKIM, and clean opt-in lists. Are they rejecting on DMARC failure because you're

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

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’

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

Calconnect’s TC-CALSPAM group is currently looking at this issue and yes, the reason is because of real world corporations that use multiple brands with different domains. Typically employees got a single email address on one of their domains but often work with people who have email

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

> > Calendar invites are a special case which requires a task-specific > solution. > > The larger problem is with forwarding. Forwarders want a way to reliably > identify themselves so that their forwarded traffic is given a favorable > reputation. Authentication based on the “Sender” header

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 3:25 PM Charles Gregory wrote: > > Has anyone considered an option to add "affiliated domains" to a DNS > entry? That way at least you could specify legitimate alternate/authorized > domains that could still pass DMARC. > Yes, but no technically and operationally sound

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

Mobile 4G LTE Device Original message From: John Levine Date: 3/24/21 4:21 PM (GMT-05:00) To: dmarc@ietf.org Cc: gell...@mimecast.com Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses It appears that Gren Elliot said: >For better or worse, there is long established p

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

in different domains. From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" Date: Wednesday, 24 March 2021 at 20:27 To: John Levine Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" , Gren Elliot Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 1:21 PM John Levine mailto:jo...@taugh.com>> w

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 1:21 PM John Levine wrote: > It appears that Gren Elliot said: > >For better or worse, there is long established practice in the > Calendaring community when implementing iMIP (rfc6047) when an > >assistant is working on behalf of a manager for the manager’s email >

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

It appears that Gren Elliot said: >For better or worse, there is long established practice in the Calendaring >community when implementing iMIP (rfc6047) when an >assistant is working on behalf of a manager for the manager’s email address to >populate the “From:” header and the >assistant’s

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

Hi, For better or worse, there is long established practice in the Calendaring community when implementing iMIP (rfc6047) when an assistant is working on behalf of a manager for the manager’s email address to populate the “From:” header and the assistant’s email address to populate the

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

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

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

On 3/24/2021 1:26 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 3/24/2021 4:54 AM, Ken O'Driscoll wrote: There is actually an existing working group draft discussing extending DMARC to incorporate the 5322.Sender header, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-sender/. That document goes into

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

On 3/24/2021 4:54 AM, Ken O'Driscoll wrote: There is actually an existing working group draft discussing extending DMARC to incorporate the 5322.Sender header, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-sender/ . That

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

2021 09:49 *To:* dmarc@ietf.org *Subject:* [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses 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 a

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

On 3/24/2021 4:54 AM, Ken O'Driscoll wrote: DMARC is intended to prevent unauthorised use a domain name in the 5322.From header. This header was chosen because it is displayed in MUAs and is the target of spoofing attempts in phishing campaigns. It was also chosen because it is the only

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

goes into considerable detail on how 5322.Sender could be incorporated in the future. Ken. From: dmarc On Behalf Of Charles Gregory Sent: Wednesday 24 March 2021 09:49 To: dmarc@ietf.org Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses I'm having trouble with DMARC prioritizing the From address

[dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

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.