On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 08:56:52PM -0500, Jason White wrote:
Russell Coker via luv-main <luv-main@luv.asn.au> wrote:
Yes. I'd appreciate it if people would stop acting like I'm doing something I want to do here. I just want mail to go through reliably and I'm doing what is necessary to achieve that goal.
I understand that it's a complicated issue, and although it's not absolutely necessary to set from_as_list, that you are only doing that to make the header munging consistent across all messages, as dmarc moderation would only munge a subset. Although I'd personally prefer the latter, I suppose we must agree to disagree on that.
Widespread use of DMARC will result in changes to well established conventions. I don't personally object to having the list server rewrite the "From" field and add a "Reply-to" header that designates the original sender; but some people have needs which differ from mine, and for them it can be an inconvenience.
Yes, it also has the potential to reduce the distributed and decentralised nature of email; I.e. if you're not sending via a "reputable" service provider, your mail wont get routed. This is antithetical to an open Internet, Internet neutrality, and it could also be considered a means of censorship by some.
If I were running a mailing list server, however, I would make it compatible with DMARC "reject" policies.
Likewise. The more I think about it, the more I dislike the current DMARC standard, it'd be nice if it could also do "Sender:" field alignment in the case of SPF, where DKIM alignment has also been satisfied by at least one signature. This would probably work towards solving the legitimate cases of mail forwarding. I believe this has also been suggested by others in the past, but went nowhere; along with the concept of an "X-Original-Authentication-Result" header, although those could be easily forged, and we're back to the subjectivity of trust problem.