Re: [dmarc-ietf] From: rewriting, was Email standard revision

Dave Crocker <> Sat, 30 November 2019 15:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C00101201DE for <>; Sat, 30 Nov 2019 07:37:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B7EYUxK3PYy6 for <>; Sat, 30 Nov 2019 07:37:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FB21120119 for <>; Sat, 30 Nov 2019 07:37:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id l136so12940588oig.1 for <>; Sat, 30 Nov 2019 07:37:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=tPzPBGlIbAi28Bpi0YsyaPlHywrqNwsPp9SeJcoG4XA=; b=ALU+GpertBuFcqczOeYI3tTrhGk8aUIZzPt4NMxFh9ytEZbTdH7wiE69VVsYMej3re +zUOYOX2zj681n6eoC0Dl6Z5giDgVdlGrmxWNbvJmdlitvpLTVSwLehQFU/+PN2IyGED NODZx7O45+dM5Ww0jOTr9k8W68cS4nwUsNNgtRqLQ/TEagJd2eVNhkKIN9UorN9dmazm DOyCtyMQr4eUBsqbcwKXmDIsmjk8VXUVazwXkXgCzWVXzySeSgCDMvBf5oVzaUbNl3pX CNDw0GvGKL1m5O9B0tCo0h2w6K0/KwhBWh9AjXnkWj1ztlXQ7KGLfjuMHlyt4QhctLYO DhiA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=tPzPBGlIbAi28Bpi0YsyaPlHywrqNwsPp9SeJcoG4XA=; b=HO3hXTGqOguvw/iGNcXRY/j9GhEmJVyt/7DZRctYHfHa7fcEn5pR4RpADw2RsT1Vot nB8v9K7Q406hJbrAplqdASMnAt/yg26UHkM10v0kUn6jdD7dgXZz6cC4tX5T2xjxUaID +DK4/3zuoWsL6LCSWTcCgAUENNlFQf8tQ7raIiqK5tGBDjfQ4gk9hK6jYRs6/Zh0JeXj /iWOsGQPrmE+kKOMK4eJlLRDgKSUsYj6SGSxn2tkxr7SQHmb849jbuJiEWS8efc62Vnt XcPAqrGyQyo64MI8ctM3MJTgo4Ye0O5FH+vCXWR9WfuGI/hQwymzY5c/j1IpF8JHz0ZG I8KQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW5Ky4LcAr/f/Kbc+R9h5ju2aC7pSMm4GramTWKvGBsq0AMdJ0y CvguGnXJg4Ig6UtukSf3HVM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzwPgVQVi9I4nhRH97JZxDEhAv/KyiUA8Wg1nu7PQv96DJiIOJzg6JyO0FJ727GiBQIpuDrKA==
X-Received: by 2002:aca:48cf:: with SMTP id v198mr5273532oia.35.1575128227729; Sat, 30 Nov 2019 07:37:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:1700:a3a0:4c80:b81c:3778:bc3:43e? ([2600:1700:a3a0:4c80:b81c:3778:bc3:43e]) by with ESMTPSA id v26sm8536695oic.5.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 30 Nov 2019 07:37:06 -0800 (PST)
To: Alessandro Vesely <>, dmarc-ietf <>
Cc: John C Klensin <>
References: <458060E1B9558124988A46B7@PSB> <> <2E5DE6BD20354824E99E564F@PSB> <> <> <>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 07:37:04 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------476176BED4137D3309AAD8EE"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] From: rewriting, was Email standard revision
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 15:37:11 -0000

On 11/30/2019 4:40 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> Let me quote this from the ietf-smtp mailing list:
> On Sat 30/Nov/2019 00:12:53 +0100 John C Klensin wrote:
>> --On Friday, 29 November, 2019 11:16 -0600 Pete Resnick wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Even the "From: rewriting" issue is
>>> a gatewaying issue, not a message format issue per se.
>>> That is less clear.  It fits into the gray area that has existed
>>> for years about just exactly what a mailing list exploder /
>>> redistribution system really is.

This view is reasonable only if one re-defines accepted terminology and ignores some basic technical facts.

A user specifies a recipient address. The message is posted and then 
delivered to that address.

That simple process describes basic email handling, and has been the 
accepted view for roughly 40 years.

And it describes the /first/ leg of a message sent /through/ a mailing list.

For the second leg, a bot at that address /re-/posts the message.  In 
simple, formal email technical terms, this is an entirely new email 

It isn't 'gatewaying' per se, since that term applies to transit between 
heterogeneous systems, but it /is/ a higher-level process.

If only we had a document that discussed all this coherently, defined 
basic terminology, and had undergone IETF review and approval.  If only 
we had RFC 5598...


Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking