Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why mailing lists

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Fri, 18 April 2014 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 172AC1A042C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:48:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 diI2psUJZ0wZ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x231.google.com (mail-wg0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0595F1A03AE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id a1so644584wgh.20 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:48:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=dxCuQLf2n0IxTTsnYJHcTyIs0m59BlRTCBxFS5Jmu/s=; b=Nk9g7nT0rjfEpGR0c8lWx6NgSa9qi+ZbtB3bd0XKF+AXECMkfCZpoJwIBWolYzMZke FNe2IYErwVSoNOs8mogKs7vwvUKAIDSQlFwDd6gswx2KlwaXp+etMTrpsQ8nOEQlRArL tBzyq80cdlHeHmDS/kfgQBnFUPJ7xMP5rY2TDXxZF/ul0Zp6tmzjUKN0GNzeDQiDCcAd dJ31c7MD0ZH4eG7AAMSOENORc0XTAN5heXT4ZBwbQAo7i6q2FbaJOeAWSfrH/4jbiy3s bMHSxw/vYW7eYgr51kXX69Qp5VPCwkfwHm6UErDMSy6y3nEYNlLvoXvA8EV63ZfvqAce sGsQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.92.7 with SMTP id ci7mr17002836wjb.7.1397836111606; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:48:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.211.40 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:48:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140418154156.GB31301@thunk.org>
References: <20140417181815.8A5871ACD1@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp> <9451.1397772992@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwa0a4nDAdCHkkMJdeemsj+cezcmH3+59CvhF8q7B72ryg@mail.gmail.com> <20140418154156.GB31301@thunk.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:48:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwb81CuZBv112Mj-SDmRx2WfmJPepThn-ebKx8NYaUbi-g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why mailing lists
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01494602e2f8aa04f753148e
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1-SBawBt-2tP1urqTtcXNw1PrpU
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:48:37 -0000

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:

> So what happens if MUA's, because users don't want to see the "From: "
> line when it's been reset to a mailing list address, ends up showing
> the users what they want, which is the original sender of the mailing
> list post?  It doesn't matter how or where we encode this information,
> whether it's in a comment in the rewritten From: field, or in a
> "X-Really-From: " header, or in the body of the message.  If there's a
> convention, whether it is in a standard or de facto, there **will** be
> cases when the users really want the original From header, and then
> what will the DMARC promoters do then?
>
> Try to ram through DMARC II that forces alignment of the
> "X-Really-From: " header, or whatever else we end up using?
>

Any answer I give to that would be speculation.  How about this: If MUAs
evolve as a result of all of this, I would hope it's in a direction that
doesn't just create whack-a-mole for the problem DMARC is trying to solve.

-MSK