[dmarc-ietf] From: rewriting, was Email standard revision

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sat, 30 November 2019 12:40 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07DBA1200A3 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Nov 2019 04:40:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FaF8bN_jBhEC for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Nov 2019 04:40:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7ECC0120091 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Nov 2019 04:40:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1575117646; bh=gXQ018FLEO5bIeOdBl2bgKSSTS7cW3euUNNheqRLZL4=; l=1546; h=To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=AtQ175dwWXBoXjfwCzvaEfaJz095DiLIPygjdTG2T34BAetc/Ppv8ZosD9jWzw3Qz Pu1KsL8K6V1keJhQwx91ffmwtohOfe9AIEqJVMLS8MDp74KD8Ev8WxXfePMt8IhKlO AWp1ISnWS4c6L18FwJNhoEYdR/WXe4hVb86MhNLXXvU6o5Os+3OVLy1tMAYH+
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA id 00000000005DC07D.000000005DE2634E.00007AED; Sat, 30 Nov 2019 13:40:46 +0100
To: dmarc-ietf <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <458060E1B9558124988A46B7@PSB> <f741b82b-3314-47e1-b0cf-ab491ffa14a6@www.fastmail.com> <2E5DE6BD20354824E99E564F@PSB> <84F1134E-5031-46BB-8C78-9E76FF971100@episteme.net> <A39990063436871E76405B96@JcK-HP5.jck.com>
Cc: John C Klensin <john@jck.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <79130263-06d5-6a63-e6c6-81b67695eb48@tana.it>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 13:40:46 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A39990063436871E76405B96@JcK-HP5.jck.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/shRbxWIRsicAVRusLKFgRf2TAss>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] From: rewriting, was Email standard revision
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: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 12:40:51 -0000

Let me quote this from the ietf-smtp mailing list:

On Sat 30/Nov/2019 00:12:53 +0100 John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Friday, 29 November, 2019 11:16 -0600 Pete Resnick wrote:
> [...] 
>> Even the "From: rewriting" issue is
>> a gatewaying issue, not a message format issue per se.
> That is less clear.  It fits into the gray area that has existed
> for years about just exactly what a mailing list exploder /
> redistribution system really is.  We've traditionally threaded
> that needle by saying that, if the message is simply
> redistributed, without messing with content (or headers other
> than trace ones), then it is an SMTP matter, and that is what
> 5321 talks about.  If more drastic changes are needed, the story
> we have told is that the mailing list mechanism is acting as the
> agent for the mailing list manager and really more like a
> specialized MUA.  I don't need to remind you about this, but
> that it the main reason 5322 specifies "Resent-" header fields
> and 5321 at least implicitly forbids true, MTA-level exploder
> from messaging with them.   So, as I say, not clear.  And, fwiw,
> an argument that anything rewriting a "From:" field should be
> identifying itself in Resent- header fields.

I, and probably many others, agree with that, as it describes the current
state of affairs smoothly.

Shouldn't we translate it into a WG RFC?  A "Domain-based Message
Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) and Mailing Lists" thing,
similar to rfc6377, possibly shorter.