Subject: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-10.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 06:44:05 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and Indirect Email Flows
        Authors         : Franck Martin
                          Eliot Lear
                          Tim Draegen
                          Elizabeth Zwicky
                          Kurt Andersen
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-10.txt
	Pages           : 22
	Date            : 2015-11-09

Abstract:
   DMARC introduces a mechanism for expressing domain-level policies and
   preferences for email message validation, disposition, and reporting.
   The DMARC mechanism can encounter interoperability issues when
   messages do not flow directly from the author's administrative domain
   to the final recipients.  Collectively these email flows are referred
   to as indirect email flows.  This document describes interoperability
   issues between DMARC and indirect email flows.  Possible methods for
   addressing interoperability issues are presented.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-10

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-10

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 13:25:57 +0100

On Mon 09/Nov/2015 15:44:05 +0100 internet-drafts wrote: 
> 
>    [...]  This document describes interoperability

I'm sorry I'm not sure whether this issue on the following text was discussed
already:

      The later modification may create issues because it is an invalid
      domain name, and some MTAs may pay particular attention to the
      validity of email addresses in RFC5322.From and the reputation of
      the domains present there.

Lots of mail have ``From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>''.  In this
case, changing that to ``From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>''
seems to be even worse than having an invalid domain.  A display phrase that
resembles an address which differs from the effective one is a clear sign of
phishing, isn't it?  Is it worth to add a warning?

For a nit, shouldn't s/The later modification/The latter modification/?
(I'm no native English speaker)

Ale