Re: [dmarc-ietf] Call for Adoption: DMARC Use of the RFC5322.Sender Header Field

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Sunday, September 27, 2020 11:44:11 PM EDT Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 9/27/2020 11:22 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > This seems to me to be an odd view because no RFC is needed to use From
> > and
> > it's relationship to either DKIM signing domain or SPF validated Mail
> > From.
> 
> The DKIM d= value establishes no relationship with any other identifer,
> such as the From: field.  At all.  None.
> 
> DMARC establishes the relationship. DMARC does other things, but for the
> above suggested alternative, this is the functional difference that
> requires DMARC.
> 
> To reiterate: Among currently published specifications, without DMARC
> there is no relationship between DKIM's d= value and the rfc5322.From
> domain name.

I just realized I neglected to respond to this part of your mail.

Right, but my mail server, my rules.  I don't need the IETF's permission to 
make such an association if I find it's a useful token for my analysis.  The 
only thing that requires any kind of formal connection is the connection to 
policy.

If you argue yourself out of the connection to policy, you've argued yourself 
out of DMARC entirely.  In order to generate the data for my classifier, it's 
entirely unnecessary to even look up the DMARC record (it might be useful as 
additional data for a more nuanced analysis, but it not needed to determine 
the relationship between rfc5322.From and DKIM d= or rfc5321.MailFrom).

Scott K