|
Hello everyone,
I would like to make a request for a discussion to my article with the title "Internet Protocol version 10" (IPv10), so we can all participate on how it will be useful for the Internet.
I recommend that all of you to check out this link for some details regarding IPv10 before starting the discussion.
Here is the link: http://internetprotocolv10.blogspot.com.eg/
From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Franck Martin <franck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2016 9:41 PM To: Terry Zink Cc: dmarc@xxxxxxxx; IETF Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Identification of an email author (was - Re: IETF Mailing Lists and DMARC) The EAI WG found it was fine to remove the obligation to have an email address part in the mandatory RFC5322.From header, leaving only the display part to assert the original author.
So it seems that "IETF" is not completely in agreement on how to preserve the original author in emails.
So I think the example showed by Terry is as good as what is in EAI and this is a matter of taste and UI designs, UI design and functions that usually the IETF avoids to deal with...
From: "Terry Zink" <tzink@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Ted Lemon" <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: dmarc@xxxxxxxx, "IETF" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, November 4, 2016 2:54:33 PM Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Identification of an email author (was - Re: IETF Mailing Lists and DMARC) If you hit “Reply-All”, at least when I use Gmail, it includes both the From: and the Reply-To using the scheme below (I tested it out just now). In Outlook desktop I have to also copy/paste the From: address (mailing list). It’s not ideal in Outlook desktop, but I can live with it.
In this email discussion, I hit Reply-All and includes Ted on the To:, and dmarc@xxxxxxxx and ietf@xxxxxxxx on the cc. From: Ted Lemon [mailto:mellon@xxxxxxxxx]
On Nov 4, 2016, at 4:21 PM, Terry Zink <tzink@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don’t think this is quite right—I think the Reply-To needs to include all of the senders or else every reply will be an off-list reply (would cut down on noise, admittedly). Otherwise this would be a great solution. But because of the way it interacts with MUAs, I do not think it would work in a way that doesn’t violate the principle of least surprise.
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc | |||