Re: DMARC and ietf.org

[[e-mail]]

> On Jul 21, 2016, at 12:43 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

> >> On 7/21/2016 7:35 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >> > Yes. So I repeat the question: Since the most pragmatic, non-purity-based
> >> > solution is to rewrite the sender field for mail from p=reject (or p=quarantine)
> >> > domains, when will we change the IETF and IRTF mailmen to do so?
> >
> >                                
> >> I'm sure you really meant this, but just to be careful, what with this
> >> being a technical point in a technical forum, it's worth clarifying that
> >> the rewriting is for the rfc5322.from field and not the rfc5322.sender
> >> field.
> >
> > I have an additional suggestion.
> >
> > If we're going to do this - and I'm not going to offer an opinion on whether or
> > not it should be done - I'd like to see it done in a fashion that's both
> > detectable and reversible. That way people using sieve or procmail or whatever
> > will be able to undo the damage.
> >
> > The most straightforward way to accomplish this would be to make copies of the
> > original fields with different names, but of course many other approaches  are
> > possible.

> I do not see MailMan settings to make that happen.  Maybe I missed something...

That's most unfortunate, and I have to say moves my position from neutral
to "don't do it".

Reversible damage is one thing, irreversible damage another.

				Ned