nanog mailing list archives
Re: Incoming SMTP in the year 2017 and absence of DKIM
From: "John Levine" <johnl () iecc com>
Date: 29 Nov 2017 21:27:39 -0000
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 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 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)