Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-crocker-dmarc-author-00 ?

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 8/12/2020 5:55 AM, Neil Anuskiewicz wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 5:13 AM Dave Crocker <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     On 8/12/2020 4:45 AM, Neil Anuskiewicz wrote:
>      > Mr. Crocker, is there a document that describes some of these
>     proposals
>      > and perhaps the best arguments for an against somewhere? The
>     firehose of
>      > learning would a bit easier if there were a FAQ. I think it might
>     even
>      > help the participants if this was all documented. Yes, I know
>     there's
>      > the archived but I mean an organized and linear doc.
> 
> 
> 
>     If you have particular questions, ask them.
> 
> 
> I've just recently started lurking but I think this is a discussion 
> about semantics. What to call a proposed RFC5322.Sender field.

The reference to field name was for an alternative to the rfc5322.From 
field, not sender.


> The problem being addressed is the munging of headers by mailing lists 
> and other forwarders, breaking things like DKIM.

mailing lists pretty much always break DKIM.  One of the proposals is to 
try to recover signature validation, post hoc.

> I've not been lurking long enough to grok what's going on but I'll 
> continue to lurk and learn, eventually finding a small way to contribute 
> to this effort even if it's just to sweep out the IETF Ashram. :-)


Welcome aboard.

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net