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

[Hector Santos <[e-mail]>]

On 9/29/2020 6:54 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 9/29/2020 3:41 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
>>
>> Do you have an algorithm that replaces the current one?
>
> I've no idea what any of your note has to do with the DKIM protocol
> specification.

wow.

> By way of a small example, DKIM does not have o=.

Right, you were instrumental in attempting to "separate" policy from 
DKIM to create DKIM-BASE, a success, it allowed progress to be made 
with DKIM, but it never separated the signer::author identity 
association primarily because, once again, DKIM-BASE is still 
inherently bound to the 5322.From field.  You never separated the DKIM 
anchor identity and it was stated many times, until then, we will 
always have the signer::author relationship and policy protocols based 
on this relationship.

Until it is changed, DKIM will always have this self-signed 
signer::author relationship. That goes back to DomainKeys with o=, 
early DKIM with o=, removed in DKIM-BASE as you gracefully pointed out 
but it moved to ADSP (now DMARC).

> But really, nothing in your note concerns the published and approved
> specification.

Published and approved, yet seeking further comments.  From I had 
already read and understood from the start, all in once sentence:

Extract 5322.Sender, if found, use this for DMARC lookup, if not 
found, fall back to 5322.From

Correct? Anything else?

The only systems that this will work with is compliant downlink 
receivers.  Non-compliant receivers are still a problem.  At the end 
of the day, the Mailing List Server (MLS) still needs to support DMARC 
on the inbound side.





-- 
Hector Santos,
https://secure.santronics.com
https://twitter.com/hectorsantos