nanog mailing list archives
RE: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM
From: "Keith Medcalf" <kmedcalf () dessus com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 15:09:40 -0700
Not old enough to have had an Executive Secretary processing your incoming snail-mail before it gets to you? The "envelope" in which a letter arrived is just as important as the letter itself and contains valuable information that is duplicated in e-mail -- the postmark (received headers), the return address (mail from); and, the delivery address (mail to). It was an offense to discard the envelope in which correspondence arrived since it is used to determine the validity of the snail mail. Current e-mail clients are comparable to having a secretary that throws out the envelope and snips off most of the inside addressing information and delivers only the heavily redacted letter so that no determination of its validity is possible. --- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces () nanog org] On Behalf Of John Levine Sent: Wednesday, 29 November, 2017 14:28 To: nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM In article <20171129183535.GB18534 () UCSD Edu> you write:As I see it, the problem isn't with DKIM, it's with the implementation of DMARC and other such filters. Almost all of them TEST THE WRONG FROM ADDRESS. They compare the Author's address (the header From: line) instead of the Sender's address,Sigh. I have my differences with the people who designed DMARC but they are not stupid and they really do understand the relevant RFCs. Some of them even wrote some of those RFCs. The reason they look at the From: line is that's the one recipients see. The Sender: header was a nice idea but in practice, it's not useful. R's, John
Current thread:
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM, (continued)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM Grant Taylor via NANOG (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM Michael Thomas (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM Grant Taylor via NANOG (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM Chuck Anderson (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM John Levine (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM Grant Taylor via NANOG (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM Grant Taylor via NANOG (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM John Levine (Dec 01)
- RE: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM Keith Medcalf (Dec 01)
- Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM John Levine (Dec 01)