Re: [dmarc-ietf] The DMARC WG has placed draft-crocker-dmarc-sender in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 13 August 2020 09:31 UTC

To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20200812235933.F11011E8A8CB@ary.local>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <a2e93c28-a27c-f9b6-74b4-452f1381569a@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 11:31:25 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200812235933.F11011E8A8CB@ary.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/b6lfibDYm5a0mcN0SEUUxujVWcA>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] The DMARC WG has placed draft-crocker-dmarc-sender in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
Precedence: list

On 2020-08-13 1:59 a.m., John Levine wrote:
> In article <000001d670ee$e38f8750$aaae95f0$@bayviewphysicians.com> you write:
>> The author fails to recognize that we have a single-author email
>> architecture.  Consequently, the last entity to alter the message IS the
>> author.
> 
> Sorry, but no.  The structure of Internet mail is quite clear, and that's not it.
> 
> I can believe there are people who wish it were like that, but no.

I think Doug meant the email architecture as induced by DMARC.

Some people can sit together and write a multi-authored message.  If 
they set a multi-mailbox From:, then their message cannot be DMARC 
validated, and can hardly be sent to a mailing list.

Let me note that much of Doug's analysis is correct.  We need to fix 
the weak points he mentions.

Best
Ale
--

[dmarc-ietf] The DMARC WG has placed draft-crocke… IETF Secretariat
Re: [dmarc-ietf] The DMARC WG has placed draft-cr… Doug Foster
Re: [dmarc-ietf] The DMARC WG has placed draft-cr… John Levine
Re: [dmarc-ietf] The DMARC WG has placed draft-cr… Alessandro Vesely