Re: DMARC and ietf.org

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 7/22/2016 7:13 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> The most straightforward way to accomplish this would be to make copies of the
>>> original fields with different names, but of course many other approaches  are
>>> possible.
>
>> I do not see MailMan settings to make that happen.  Maybe I missed something...
>
> That's most unfortunate, and I have to say moves my position from neutral
> to "don't do it".
>
> Reversible damage is one thing, irreversible damage another.
That's the dilemma. An agent that obeys p=reject does irreversible
damage too. I can figure out how to live with p=reject being treated
as p=quarantine, but not with "reject means reject".


There are different levels of issue here. The one that Ned is raising is something that we might be able to affect.

The changes made by mailing list software were done in haste and without community deliberation, in response to a sudden escalation. The efforts were well-intentioned, but haven't been vetted.

Since the changes are going to be with us for quite awhile (and maybe permanently) we ought to formulate a recommendation, up to the level of making it a BCP (or even PS...)

Reversibility of the changes to the message is a requirement I hadn't heard before, but it makes complete sense. My own complaint is about messing with the usability of the From field by the recipient.

I suggest initiating a small effort to formulate a suggested 'standard' behavior by mediators (eg, mailing lists) that modify the rfc5322.From field, in response to DMARC issues.

The effort should include some usability folks, since this is visible to recipients and the design of the details should attend to... well, you know, utility and ease of use.

d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]