Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

Charles Gregory <> Wed, 24 March 2021 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97BB33A32C5 for <>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 11:17:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ApA8p6b3SOPO for <>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 11:17:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B2E63A32B5 for <>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 11:17:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (fd07::1:0:0:1:4) by (fd07::1:0:0:1:4) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.2.792.3; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 14:17:30 -0400
Received: from ([fe80::ad5d:d7f1:b37d:a89f]) by ([fe80::ad5d:d7f1:b37d:a89f%7]) with mapi id 15.02.0792.010; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 14:17:30 -0400
From: Charles Gregory <>
To: Dave Crocker <>, Ken O'Driscoll <>
Thread-Topic: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses
Thread-Index: AdcgkuKhihmmxnZnSJC0xMH2ibjOrQADKZuQABU22QD//8sfnw==
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 18:17:30 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_ed880cdedca24494ab474fbf1578bac9possumdelightcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 18:17:41 -0000

Thank you for the replies gentlemen.  This draft exactly what we are needing!

Responsible users want to be able to send to e-mail lists as themselves and have replies go to themselves while bounces go to a central system inbox ( return-path address for processing and database cleanup - without risk of lower deliverability rates.

Honestly, I can't believe this wasn't considered.

I realize changes like this take a long time to roll out / be adopted; but what's involved in getting this "unstuck?  Honestly I have no idea how these things happen.

Charles Gregory

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

-------- Original message --------
From: Dave Crocker <>
Date: 3/24/21 1:27 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Ken O'Driscoll <>rg>, Charles Gregory <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

On 3/24/2021 4:54 AM, Ken O'Driscoll wrote:
There is actually an existing working group draft discussing extending DMARC to incorporate the 5322.Sender header, see That document goes into considerable detail on how 5322.Sender could be incorporated in the future.

To be possibly overly frank, I think the draft is stalled.  Given existing practice, there are challenges to fielding this, for incremental adoption, in a way that is reasonable and useful.  (The Internet does not support 'flag' days.)

I am still, sometimes, mulling over the choices for this, but so far haven't come up with (or seen) ways to resolve the challenge.

An option the working group declined to pursue is to define an Author: field and leave the From: field to the 'handling' role DMARC has relegated it to.  The draft for this is being pursued outside of the working group.


Dave Crocker<>

Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
Information & PLanning Coordinator
American Red Cross<>