[dmarc-ietf] RESENT fields?
"Douglas E. Foster" <fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com> Wed, 07 October 2020 02:46 UTC
Return-Path: <btv1==54955ffaf22==fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62AA53A15C1 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 19:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=bayviewphysicians.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tOiKr1q2mWDJ for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 19:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.bayviewphysicians.com (mail.bayviewphysicians.com [216.54.111.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18B653A15C0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 19:46:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1602038808-11fa312073457b0001-K2EkT1
Received: from webmail.bayviewphysicians.com (webmail.bayviewphysicians.com [192.168.1.49]) by mail.bayviewphysicians.com with ESMTP id xszJyp8farJrO6qV (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Oct 2020 22:46:48 -0400 (EDT)
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com
X-Barracuda-RBL-Trusted-Forwarder: 192.168.1.49
X-SmarterMail-Authenticated-As: fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bayviewphysicians.com; s=s1025; h=message-id:reply-to:subject:to:from; bh=XRF2cc1A1NVm2IqKsVI7VoQb0NywHWd6Knp3XHXoCVo=; b=VjX0J32+eBdDkoTAmeMFAi8xb4vsq6M3CR4Br/B2LW+t7kUQmYSl0yNpRHECXJ7JF SrfZJFgWAAFqldBHuTrpGvMTHlln1aiHOX3dmmNX0YZZfx4zbzeWM5B5dLaJyIWq8 m1oVUBIYlB02/bcI/ykfxMi+t1G16ML+cTFw/uFIw=
From: "Douglas E. Foster" <fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com>
To: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 22:46:39 -0400
X-ASG-Orig-Subj: RESENT fields?
Reply-To: fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com
Message-ID: <e979ca77650640c0a304b655855b2367@bayviewphysicians.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="80b1f0965ad7459ebb53df5f49283199"
X-Exim-Id: e979ca77650640c0a304b655855b2367
X-Barracuda-Connect: webmail.bayviewphysicians.com[192.168.1.49]
X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1602038808
X-Barracuda-Encrypted: ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384
X-Barracuda-URL: https://mail.bayviewphysicians.com:443/cgi-mod/mark.cgi
X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1
X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at bayviewphysicians.com
X-Barracuda-Scan-Msg-Size: 2411
X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00
X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE
X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.85119 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.00 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/oBFWiOgqj5_AtWJguqznx0hlNJg>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] RESENT fields?
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 02:46:51 -0000
Are the RESENT fields from RFC 5322 an interesting idea that everybody has ignored? For purposes of this discussion, they interest me because they provide a way of documenting changes to the SMTP sender, the From Header, and the recipient list. RFC 5322 Section 3.6.6 says they SHOULD by added whenever a message is re-introduced to the transport system. Mailing list activity seems to fit the language and intent of this section. But I do not see any RESENT fields on the most recent posts to this list. In fact, I am not sure that I have ever seen a message anywhere with these fields. Application: For forwarded messages, I don't want to trust the forwarder's spam filter, so I want to reconstruct the message identity as it appeared when the message entered the forwarder's ADMD. The Resent fields would allow that logic to be developed, but I would also need forwarders to use those fields. The usage would also need to apply to auto-forwarders, even though they are explicitly exempted from the RESENT header recommendation in the current RFC. Doug Foster
- [dmarc-ietf] RESENT fields? Douglas E. Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] RESENT fields? Ken O'Driscoll