Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: Agenda requests for Madrid IETF

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

On Sun 26/Jul/2020 04:00:40 +0200 Dotzero wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 9:48 AM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 12:05 PM Dotzero wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to see an agenda item as to whether work around "Display
>>> Name" changes are in scope or out of scope for this effort and this working
>>> group. It would seem to me that any such efforts are more appropriate for
>>> the emailcore working group.
>>>
>>
>> A quick read of the current charters suggests to me that it's in scope for
>> neither.  That seems to be especially true for emailcore.
>>
>> Do you have such a change to propose?
>>
>>
> I was hoping for a ruling that such an effort be ruled out of scope for the 
> DMARC effort/working group and further discussions be limited by the Chairs.
> As "Not Douglas E. Foster" (John Levine)  noted, it is a free form field.

Although out of scope, I'd still propose that display name abuse be explicitly 
mentioned in one of the specs as an out-of-scope problem that has to be solved 
at a different level.


> DMARC has been intended from the start to mitigate direct domain
> abuse by 3rd parties. I'm hoping that the working group will make better
> progress by focusing on issues specific to DMARC and not try boiling the
> ocean by trying to "fix" all forms of abuse through this effort. Display
> Name abuse is a broader problem that DMARC simply is not in a position to
> address. This is especially true as most current implementations are at the
> MTA and MUA providers are not visible among the participants in this
> working group. My opinion is that trying to address this problem space in
> this working group is somewhat like trying to push on a rope.


Let me add that, for the sake of Murray's dkim-transform, unlike subject tag 
and footer additions which only need a couple of bits to be undone, display 
name removal would require the full original header field, as in a (partial) z= 
tag.

BTW, dkim-transform, along with From: rewriting, using To:, using Author:, and 
giving up any modifications make for an effective solution of the MLM problem. 
  None of them belongs specifically to DMARC, albeit the spec could mention them.

Dkim-transform, in particular, looks like an update to RFC 6376.  Yet, it might 
be practical for this WG to adopt it.  Shall we discuss that F2F?


Best
Ale
--