Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [bozo subtopic]
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 11 September 2014 16:54 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 48D7A1A8796 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 09:54:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.252
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.252 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652] autolearn=ham
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 HyFCqJmBOxy0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 09:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDCF11A877C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 09:54:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from h8.int.jck.com ([198.252.137.35] helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1XS7dl-000Jpp-08; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 12:54:37 -0400
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 12:54:31 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Subject: Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [bozo subtopic]
Message-ID: <5BDC34CDABC75F8588294487@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140911012524.4078.qmail@joyce.lan>
References: <20140911012524.4078.qmail@joyce.lan>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.35
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/FBEvQ_9aelvYjVjSWQMrExet9b0
Cc: 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: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 16:54:44 -0000
--On Thursday, September 11, 2014 01:25 +0000 John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote: >... > The one that's most widely used rewrites the From: line to put > the list's address in place of the author's. It "works" in > the sense that it avoids DMARC rejections, but at the cost of > screwing up the mailing lists so you can't tell who wrote what > from the usual MUA display, and in many cases, you can't tell > who wrote a message at all unless you put the author's address > as the Reply-To, which has its own well known set of problems. FWIW (and with the understanding that you don't need convincing), I find that approach really objectionable. In addition to the pragmatic reasons you cite (and some others such as the ability to prioritize mail based on origin), we've been careful, almost since the dawn of network mail, to associate what now appears as "From:" with the actual originator of the message. We've invented "Sender" and "Resent-" header fields to preserve that distinction and make it clear. For a mail exploder to violate that principle, especially to make an ill-designed protocol work better, seems problematic to me. For the IETF, it is bad news when we cannot or will not adopt. use, and conform to one of our own established standards-track protocols. But, if we have a system that does conform and we switch it to not conform in order to accommodate an unfortunate practice or design, that would be far worse, putting us in must the same position we put ITU in when we pointed out that they considered X.400 so stable, useful, and well-implemented that they were using SMTP. john
- gmail users read on... Brian E Carpenter
- Re: gmail users read on... Rich Kulawiec
- Re: gmail users read on... Andrew G. Malis
- Re: gmail users read on... Ross Finlayson
- Re: gmail users read on... Michael Richardson
- Re: gmail users read on... Mary Barnes
- RE: gmail users read on... l.wood
- Re: gmail users read on... Ross Finlayson
- Re: gmail users read on... Ted Faber
- Re: gmail users read on... Tim Bray
- Re: gmail users read on... TJ
- Re: gmail users read on... Ross Finlayson
- Re: gmail users read on... Riccardo Bernardini
- Re: gmail users read on... Paul Hoffman
- Re: gmail users read on... TJ
- Re: gmail users read on... Ted Faber
- Re: gmail users read on... joel jaeggli
- Re: gmail users read on... Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: gmail users read on... [technical subtopic] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: gmail users read on... [bozo subtopic] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: gmail users read on... [bozo subtopic] Andrew G. Malis
- Re: gmail users read on... [bozo subtopic] Hector Santos
- Re: gmail users read on... [bozo subtopic] Antonio Prado
- Re: gmail users read on... [bozo subtopic] Joe Abley
- Re: gmail users read on... [bozo subtopic] Doug Barton
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… John Levine
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… John C Klensin
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… Doug Barton
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… Doug Barton
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… John Levine
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… John C Klensin
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… Nico Williams
- RE: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… Christian Huitema
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… George Michaelson
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… John Levine
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… Miles Fidelman
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… Dave Crocker
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… Theodore Ts'o
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… Donald Eastlake
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… Viktor Dukhovni
- RE: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… Wei Chuang
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… Doug Barton
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… Dave Crocker
- RE: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… Doug Barton
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… Nico Williams
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… Sabahattin Gucukoglu
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… John Levine
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… John C Klensin
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… Wei Chuang
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… Wei Chuang
- Re: gmail users read on... Hector Santos
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… Hector Santos
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… Scott Kitterman
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… Hector Santos
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… Hector Santos
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… Hector Santos
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… Dave Crocker
- Re: gmail users read on... George Michaelson
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… David Morris
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… John Levine
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… Rich Kulawiec
- Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [boz… Rich Kulawiec