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

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.

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 8:32 PM Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

>
> >> I was quite surprised -- at the level of astonished -- to see the
> >> pushback on the Author header-field proposal, since it is such a simple
> >> and straightforward mechanism.
> >
> > The different bits in the message are simple enough.
> >
> > The problem is that it might as well be called Really-From, and then
>
> Your opening item is that you don't like the name of the field?
>
> In any event, I suggested "Author" because it is simple and accurate.
> Something like what you suggest - on the off-chance you are serious --
> offers distracting tone and baggage.
>
>
> > when enough systems do mutant DMARC to cause the same problems with
> > Really-From that we have with From,
>
> That's a premise with no foundation and arguably no validity.
>
> At the least, if you are going to use this as the substance of your
> concern, perhaps you could explain with some care why you are so certain
> this will happen.
>
> Here's why I think it won't:  They already have From:.
>
> The real value in DMARC is not what is displayed to the end-user but in
> having a required field that cites the originating domain name.  That
> doesn't change if there are additional fields that might or might not
> mention the originating domain.
>
>
> > the step after that is
> > Really-Really-From, so on ad nauseam. While that happens (or maybe
> > doesn't) we have no idea whether MUAs will display it or let you enter
>
> The question of whether any MUAs will implement this is the same concern
> for any proposal.  So on its own, that would mean we never do anything
> unless implementers and operators promise to use it.  Absent an IETF
> formal policy to that end...
>
>
> > it or automatically make it the same as From or maybe something else,
> > likely making it a disaster for interoperability.
> >
> > I think the DMARC sender draft is a lot more promising.
>
> It has it's own problems.
>
> There's no perfection here, since the task is retro-fitting work-arounds
> to an established mechanism that has been altered.  As I've noted,
> realistically, DMARC makes the From: field be the Sender: field.
>
> d/
>
>
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>