Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

Gren Elliot <> Wed, 24 March 2021 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D1CE3A0121 for <>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 13:37:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rRWGFq4sCmxO for <>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 13:37:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 768EB3A00E9 for <>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 13:37:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130419; t=1616618225; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=MM4FKIRD1lbMmVI0Tr1nMWH9gFh9SDYzRNZioJ3Uidw=; b=ncjqlC3ypy1g6DQpYPyQ3SKlHNylsXMetDmu+lWZyP8RafO8Bh+F543x0kCNRzhg2lyTlP Ide0xkdRT070m2uB2G3MjzDmFDk5IfsoZYHTFD+ZhrP64aaXq9CsJCcaMrC06vCSOM3MiO RzH0rTx8G45s6Kf7BRy95wxXxZ5cxbs=
Received: from ( []) (Using TLS) by with ESMTP id uk-sl-a-xy6F7sXfOs2fTVvCjCXL4Q-1; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 20:37:01 +0000
X-MC-Unique: xy6F7sXfOs2fTVvCjCXL4Q-1
Received: from LHC-IT-EML-P01.mcsltd.internal ( by LHC-IT-EML-P01.mcsltd.internal ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 20:37:00 +0000
Received: from LHC-IT-EML-P01.mcsltd.internal ([fe80::581:e1a7:4c7b:bd43]) by LHC-IT-EML-P01.mcsltd.internal ([fe80::581:e1a7:4c7b:bd43%4]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.009; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 20:37:00 +0000
From: Gren Elliot <>
To: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <>, John Levine <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses
Thread-Index: AQHXIN1IKd8+9xh5sUaPOccbp7m+SqqTlKsAgAAB3QCAAAKdgA==
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 20:37:00 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <20210324202058.91E777134D1B@ary.qy> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
x-originating-ip: []
MIME-Version: 1.0
Authentication-Results:; auth=pass smtp.auth=C1A1
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4677E791B0284CAC97520F4D8F1B0103mimecastcom_"
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 20:37:14 -0000

Calconnect’s TC-CALSPAM group is currently looking at this issue and yes, the reason is because of real world corporations that use multiple brands with different domains.  Typically employees got a single email address on one of their domains but often work with people who have email addresses in different domains.

From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <>
Date: Wednesday, 24 March 2021 at 20:27
To: John Levine <>
Cc: "" <>rg>, Gren Elliot <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 1:21 PM John Levine <<>> wrote:
It appears that Gren Elliot  <<>> said:
>For better or worse, there is long established practice in the Calendaring community when implementing iMIP (rfc6047) when an
>assistant is working on behalf of a manager for the manager’s email address to populate the “From:” header and the
>assistant’s email address to populate the “Sender:” header.

DMARC only looks at the domain part of the From header.  How often do the manager and assistant have e-mail addresses that
are not in the same domain?


This goes back to your Roman Empire scenario. It's not necessarily common, but it isn't unheard of for domain mismatches especially in the case of acquisitions or other corporate structuring changes.