Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why mailing lists
mrex@sap.com (Martin Rex) Thu, 17 April 2014 20:55 UTC
Return-Path: <mrex@sap.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 8AB281A0194 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 13:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 eUIlzhrED8-1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 13:55:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpde02.sap-ag.de (smtpde02.sap-ag.de [155.56.68.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BDA11A0109 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 13:55:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail05.wdf.sap.corp by smtpde02.sap-ag.de (26) with ESMTP id s3HKsxPY028311 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 17 Apr 2014 22:54:59 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why mailing lists
In-Reply-To: <53503AD1.3000505@iecc.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 22:54:59 +0200
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL125 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Message-Id: <20140417205459.785251ACD1@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp>
From: mrex@sap.com
X-SAP: out
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/L6S8ljLve_0RNC5s7RqRGrq_NcU
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mrex@sap.com
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, 17 Apr 2014 20:55:26 -0000
John Levine wrote: >> >> This is *NOT* about protection or authentication, this is purely about >> rfc822/2822/5322 message semantics. Something that has been well-defined >> and constant for decades. > > I have considerable sympathy in theory for your viewpoint, but in > practice, the Sender header was deprecated a long time ago. Most MUAs > ignore it, the few that don't display it in a way that just confuses people. According to _what_ standard do MUAs interpret the semantics of EMail then? AFAIK, the relevant standard that the IETF published for this purpose is rfc5322, and in that specification, Sender: is alive and kicking just the way it has been since rfc822. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.2 If the originator of the message can be indicated by a single mailbox and the author and transmitter are identical, the "Sender:" field SHOULD NOT be used. Otherwise, both fields SHOULD appear. Now if you're wonding what that "SHOULD" in there means, there is a reference to rfc2119 at the beginning of rfc5322, (a pretty common reference in IETF specifications...) https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-1.2.1 1.2.1. Requirements Notation This document occasionally uses terms that appear in capital letters. When the terms "MUST", "SHOULD", "RECOMMENDED", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD NOT", and "MAY" appear capitalized, they are being used to indicate particular requirements of this specification. A discussion of the meanings of these terms appears in [RFC2119]. which leads to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119#section-3 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course. MUAs that goof the semantics of the "Sender:" header field are either not implementing EMail the way it has been specified by the IETF, or they goofed the second part of the above explanation for SHOULD. -Martin
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John R Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Sabahattin Gucukoglu
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Scott Kitterman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John R Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Sabahattin Gucukoglu
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Dave Crocker
- DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large ope… Robin H. Johnson
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Robin H. Johnson
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Robin H. Johnson
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… ned+ietf
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… S Moonesamy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John R Levine
- RE: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Alex Ojeda
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Hector Santos
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Hector Santos
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… S Moonesamy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… S Moonesamy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Hector Santos
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Hector Santos
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Doug Barton
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Doug Barton
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… ned+ietf
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Dave Crocker
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John R Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John C Klensin
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John R Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Sabahattin Gucukoglu
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John C Klensin
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Doug Barton
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John C Klensin
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… S Moonesamy
- RE: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… l.wood
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Dave Crocker
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John C Klensin
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- RE: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… S Moonesamy
- Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a listad… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… Theodore Ts'o
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Dave Cridland
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: protecting the Internet from DMARC damage, wa… John Levine
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… John Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Dave Cridland
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… John Levine
- RE: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Doug Barton
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Doug Barton
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Dave Crocker
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Murray S. Kucherawy
- RE: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… S Moonesamy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Douglas Otis
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John Levine
- RE: protecting the Internet from DMARC damage, wa… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: protecting the Internet from DMARC damage, wa… John R Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Doug Barton
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Scott Kitterman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Scott Kitterman
- Re: protecting the Internet from DMARC damage, wa… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Dave Cridland
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… Michael Richardson
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… ned+ietf
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… Theodore Ts'o
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… John R Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Dave Crocker
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… Michael Richardson
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… S Moonesamy
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… Theodore Ts'o
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… S Moonesamy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Pete Resnick
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Hector Santos
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Hector Santos
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Theodore Ts'o
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Sabahattin Gucukoglu
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Scott Kitterman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Theodore Ts'o
- Let's talk (was: DMARC: perspectives from a lista… S Moonesamy
- (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of special John R Levine
- RE: Let's talk (was: DMARC: perspectives from a l… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John R. Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Pete Resnick
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Michael Richardson
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John Levine
- RE: Let's talk (was: DMARC: perspectives from a l… S Moonesamy
- Re: Let's talk (was: DMARC: perspectives from a l… Dave Cridland
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Dave Cridland
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Dave Cridland
- RE: Let's talk (was: DMARC: perspectives from a l… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… John R Levine
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Miles Fidelman
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Pete Resnick
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… tytso
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Mark Andrews
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… John R Levine
- Re: (DMARC) How a whitelist would work, was Why m… John R Levine
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Pete Resnick
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Dave Cridland
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Yoav Nir
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… John R Levine
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Martin Rex
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Yoav Nir
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Dave Cridland
- RE: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Pete Resnick
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Miles Fidelman
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… ned+ietf
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Miles Fidelman
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Martin Rex
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… ned+ietf
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Douglas Otis
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Martin Rex
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… John Levine
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… John Levine
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Martin Rex
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… John Levine
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Michael Richardson
- Re: (DMARC) How a whitelist would work, was Why m… Michael Richardson
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Michael Richardson
- Re: (DMARC) How a whitelist would work, was Why m… John R Levine
- Re: (DMARC) How a whitelist would work, was Why m… Miles Fidelman
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… John Levine
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… John Levine
- Re: (DMARC) How a whitelist would work, was Why m… Yoav Nir
- Re: (DMARC) How a whitelist would work, was Why m… John R Levine
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… John R Levine
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Theodore Ts'o
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Douglas Otis
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… John R Levine
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Theodore Ts'o
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… tytso
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… tytso
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Theodore Ts'o
- [off-off-track] Re: (DMARC) We've been here befor… Miles Fidelman
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… John Levine
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Alessandro Vesely