Re: Do we actually want to do anything about DMARC?

[[e-mail]]

> > Good, we agree about this, but, I still think we need to lead with a carrot
> > (new DMARC spec to solve the problem), and a stick (date at which we will
> > comply to DMARC)

> I can promise you that the large mail providers will say "that's nice" and
> will not change the way they handle DMARC.  They have a large investment
> in it, and they see significant benefits rejecting actual forgery.  The
> number of bogus messages that DMARC rejects vastly outnumber the mistakes,
> but unfortunately the mistakes are painful to us.

> We have no leverage here.  It's ARC or nothing.

> > It's been like two years that I said the same thing.
> >
> >    > My preferred approach until ARC is usable is to rewrite the From:
> >    > address to a legible forwarding address.  The IETF already handles a
> >    > bazillion forwarding addresses for I-D and RFC authors, so I'd think it
> >    > wouldn't be terribly hard to adapt that.  You don't have to change any
> >    > mailman code; you can do everything in a shim between the list manager
> >    > and the outgoing postfix submission program.
> >
> > I call this NAT for email.

> Kind of, but it's 1-1 NAT where you can look at the NAT address and know
> what the underlying address is, so you still see something useful in your
> MUA's message list.

And if you have the tools, you can undo the damage.

I regard being able to undo whatever is done as a "must have".

				Ned