Just a couple of notes: On Fri 11/May/2018 14:00:15 +0200 Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > Below are some technical details on how the email address rewriting workaround is going to work: > > Emails from domains that don't have a p=reject DMARC setting are not going to be affected in any way. > > For emails from p=reject domains: Some put p=reject; pct=0; for the sole purpose of having From: rewritten. The principle of least surprise would suggest to apply rewriting uniformly. > - The From header field of such emails will be rewritten to be under > @dmarc.ietf.org domain (which will have a p=none policy). For example, > "alexey@xxxxxxxxxxx" email address would become > "alexey=40example.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx". The original From header field will > be preserved in the X-Original-From header field, which can be used for > automatic message processing by Sieve and Mail User Agents. Besides encoding, the semantic of alexey=40example.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx will never be clear, even to those familiar with DMARC. My experience after replying "all" on one of those messages was not what I expected, and I couldn't tell if that was a bug[*]. How about just appending the original address to Reply-To[**]: and keep the From: address as simple as dmarc@xxxxxxxx? jm2c Ale -- [*] IIRC, my reply was duplicated and one of those messages had three DKIM signatures bearing d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; rather than the usual two ones. [**] Or a brand new field such as List-Reply-To:, when we'll standardize rewriting --no, I don't think it's going to go away with ARC.
