Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Friday, April 28, 2023 3:57:55 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Fri 28/Apr/2023 05:14:16 +0200 Jesse Thompson wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 9:54 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >> On April 28, 2023 2:49:48 AM UTC, Jesse Thompson <[e-mail]> 
wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 9:40 PM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 10:44 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> >>>>> Also, state that serious consideration includes testing p=quarantine;
> >>>>> pct=0^H t=y.>>>> 
> >>>> I was going to say something similar but I think that it is implied by
> >>>> section A.7>>>
> >>>Actually, I like referencing A.7 here as a pointer.
> >>>
> >>>This achieves consensus on the rewrite objection.
> >>>
> >>>A.7 describes the rewrite without condoning it:
> >>>[citation elided]
> 
> Good note.  I think it's called /lapsus calami/ when one ends up writing
> something which wasn't supposed to be uttered.  "The phenomena can be traced
> back to incompletely suppressed psychical material, which, although pushed
> away by consciousness, has nevertheless not been robbed of all capacity for
> expressing itself" to cite Freud.
> 
> >> I think we can describe what people are doing without placing a strong
> >> value judgement on it, but I think we have to say we haven't assessed
> >> all the associated interoperability impacts of it and at least mention
> >> that 5321 says not to do it.> 
> > Restricting the "MUST NOT" to the context of 5321 achieves consensus, I
> > think
> RFC 5321 is not normative on that point.  Section 3.9 says MLMs MUST change
> the bounce address and SHOULD simply use the list.  That's the only mustard
> in the section.  Changes to the header and the body are certainly not
> encouraged, but the section ends saying:
> 
>     There exist mailing lists that perform additional, sometimes
>     extensive, modifications to a message and its envelope.  Such mailing
>     lists need to be viewed as full MUAs, which accept a delivery and
>     post a new message.
> 
> Now, *every* MUA I know rewrites From: when the user forwards a message.

We've gone pretty far past where I was planning to go with this particular 
thread, so I'll leave this with two points:

1.  MUA forwarding of a message is not a mailing list.

2.  Read the main part of 3.9, not the sub-paragraph.

Scott K