Re: [dmarc-ietf] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-15.txt> (Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and Indirect Email Flows) to Informational RFC

Alexey Melnikov <> Sun, 22 May 2016 10:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8606A12D550; Sun, 22 May 2016 03:54:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=Pn/m4sZb; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=OZAZNFjs
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lYCoztm0FR9E; Sun, 22 May 2016 03:54:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6CD212D537; Sun, 22 May 2016 03:54:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 585F520385; Sun, 22 May 2016 06:54:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend1 ([]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 22 May 2016 06:54:03 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=TKBkmV6Pm2OY1zFH4KmbPPJDpiQ=; b=Pn/m4s Zbzd5gMz3YVCx6zDmh+7XOesbAD9hzoO1pW2SbsmwFtPgtQnhQWWYOBVuF3EUFLp H8ifiSzsuqzQ+AZRosG7mgfmcr89yNCquirZS1kpmBSAMgYfsEIfSGvU2LoMMNfl A9Pfdu4gNAqEZZtVpqXCK/tFeXv7bya0Kby2E=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=TKBkmV6Pm2OY1zF H4KmbPPJDpiQ=; b=OZAZNFjszYNV6Ip/qbGA817Ubpxlw3oxmKBJ4rYOs6vy8G+ VzBv9h25/qMolUo0PR+IsXgL9pio1IMpFXX4iZhvSbkXAUxmxD6glzXjB1e9pY2Y FtW+6NJSmYxxDBu5Ejk8RGyLDkGJnV874bhU0quxN3O2ON43i8qaukMuQaHA=
X-Sasl-enc: qCrjKigNfqMvivVjz8YydWmifFJOwFIiYDkwhpJSp/9+ 1463914442
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E7790F29E5; Sun, 22 May 2016 06:54:02 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-15.txt> (Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and Indirect Email Flows) to Informational RFC
From: Alexey Melnikov <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13E238)
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 12:00:19 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, Ned Freed <>,,,,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 10:54:08 -0000

On 22 May 2016, at 00:08, Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:

>>  o  Configuring the MLM to "wrap" the message in a MIME message/rfc822
>>      part and to send as the Mailing List email address.  Many email
>>      clients (as of the publication of this document), especially
>>      mobile clients, have difficulty reading such messages and this is
>>      not expected to change soon.
> This seems like a quite elegant solution. I'm very surprised by the second
> sentence - are these clients that have difficulty with many Content-Types
> or is it a specific issue for message/rfc822?

Only message/rfc822. E.g. it took iOS a couple of years to start supporting it properly. And it is one of the better mobile email clients.