Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc)

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Viktor Dukhovni <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 06:20:35PM -0700, Douglas Otis wrote:
>
> > > This is a solved problem, the "Rfc822.Sender" field should have
> > > from the outset trumped the "Rfc822.From" field when determining
> > > message origin, and the DMARC policy should be that of the "Sender"
> > > domain.  Some MUAs already expose "Sender != From" by displaying
> > > "From <sender> on behalf of <author>".  This needs to become standard
> > > MUA behaviour.
> >
> > Viktor,
> >
> > You are right, but this provides a domain not always seen by
> > recipients.  Only the From header field is surely displayed.
>
> That means that some corner cases will remain unsolved until MUAs
> evolve to catch up.  Pretending there is no elephant in the room
> is a poor long-term strategy.
>
> Work to improve the deficient MUAs.


I'd love to hear suggestions about how the IETF can do that.

I think, questions of expertise aside, MUA developers simply don't engage
here [anymore] and follow different paths or time scales than we do most of
the time.  This obvoiusly limits our solution space to what operators can
do, because they're here.

-MSK