Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with RFC 5322 on the use of the From and Sender header fields

[John Levine <[e-mail]>]

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>1) The original assertion, that DMARC creates a conflict with prior specifications, appears to be undefended and incorrect.

It should not be controversial that DMARC can only describe a subset
of valid Internet mail. The problem arises when people then assert
that somehow it is our fault that we are sending mail that DMARC can't
describe, typically in ways we've been using for decades, long before
anyone thought of DMARC.

>2) Some of the discussion appeared to resolve around the assertion that DMARC can have no value.

It clearly has value to Verizon, and it apparently has value to banks
and Paypal. I can't see that it has much value for me or my users,
since it has screwed up all the mailing lists we use, and for whatever
reason we're not big phish targets.

R's,
John

PS: My bank chronically sends out real mail that looks like a total
phish, e.g., it says there's a dubious charge on your card, click this
button if it's real or that button if it's not, with the URL for
neither button having any connection to any domain the bank owns.
I know it's real because I know enough about the bank business to
recognize the subcontractor they use, but jeez.