On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 06:20:35PM -0700, Douglas Otis wrote:That means that some corner cases will remain unsolved until MUAs
> > This is a solved problem, the "Rfc822.Sender" field should have
> > from the outset trumped the "Rfc822.From" field when determining
> > message origin, and the DMARC policy should be that of the "Sender"
> > domain. Some MUAs already expose "Sender != From" by displaying
> > "From <sender> on behalf of <author>". This needs to become standard
> > MUA behaviour.
>
> Viktor,
>
> You are right, but this provides a domain not always seen by
> recipients. Only the From header field is surely displayed.
evolve to catch up. Pretending there is no elephant in the room
is a poor long-term strategy.
Work to improve the deficient MUAs.
I'd love to hear suggestions about how the IETF can do that.
I think, questions of expertise aside, MUA developers simply don't engage here [anymore] and follow different paths or time scales than we do most of the time. This obvoiusly limits our solution space to what operators can do, because they're here.
I think, questions of expertise aside, MUA developers simply don't engage here [anymore] and follow different paths or time scales than we do most of the time. This obvoiusly limits our solution space to what operators can do, because they're here.
-MSK