Russell, thank you for the response, and for the maintenance you are providing for LUV infrastructure. On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 01:27:18PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 08:48:34 PM Joel W. Shea wrote:
[...]
Of the options for dmarc_moderation_action: [...] 2) Is what we currently do. 3) is really ugly and will make things more difficult for readers. [...]
If that's the case, either: from_is_list is also set, or dmarc_moderation_action is broken; as it should only be munging the "From:" field on messages arriving from domains with a restrictive DMARC policy. I concede the following point may be subjective; but I think wrapping is actually less-ugly, since it gives a clearer picture of what's happening, than simply munging the header; and agree it's more difficult for readers, in that it adds an extra keystroke for me to open the message in my MUA. (but I actually prefer that in the case of digests) [...]
the "From:" field SHOULD NOT contain any mailbox that does not belong to the author(s) of the message."
Unless of course the message body and headers are being rewritten such that it's not the same message as was originally sent.
I agree that's a fair interpretation, but (IMO) also implies that the forwarder of that message now claims authorship. [...]
I'm not convinced there's any "valid reasons" to munge the "From:" field in either of the following circumstances.
1) DKIM signing messages sent by the mailing list [...]
Whether the luv.asn.au domain has a ADSP or DMARC record is not relevant. What is relevant is domains like yahoo.com.
I should clarify this circumstance; it's only relevant where luv.asn.au is adding its own DKIM-Signature, it does not require the domain in the "From:" header field to align.
2) Lists receiving mail from domains with a restrictive policy
All the choices have downsides, this one seems like the least difficult.
I reluctantly agree, but *only* for messages sent from a domain with a DMARC policy of reject/quarantine. Hence dmarc_moderation_action being preferred *instead of* from_is_list.
Possible Solution:
Do you realise that you just wrote a long message railing against rewriting the From field and came to the conclusion that it's a good option?
Yes, I was adding my support to the consensus against rewriting that field. Again, I reluctantly agree it's probably the only solution that meets LUV requirements, but *only* where it's absolutely necessary, and not on every message forwarded by the mailing list(s).
* Rejecting the post, as has already been stated by others on this thread, may provide the feedback to signers (via failure reports) to determine a better "market solution"
In that case the "market solution" might be "don't deal with Linux people as they make things difficult". [...]
I'd contend that corporations implementing standards in their own interests, and ignoring legitimate real world usage; are making things difficult. Ideally, I'd also like to see the standard improved to allow receivers to defer to the additional signatures of "trusted" third-party relay/forwarders; although, determining trust is another problem.