On Sat, Feb 28, 2026 at 12:53 PM Byunghee HWANG (황병희) <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hellow Debian Hackers, > > According to > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5863#section-6.5>, > > <quote: RFC 5863> > Service Providers: > A service provider can, as described above, > choose to sign outbound messages with either its own identity or > an identity unique to each of its clients (possibly delegated). > However, it can also do both: sign each outbound message with its > own identity as well as with the identity of each individual > client. For example, ESP A might sign mail for its client Company > B with its service provider signature d=espa.example, and a second > client-specific signature where d= either companyb.example or > companyb.espa.example. The existence of the service provider > signature could, for example, help cover a new client while it > establishes its own reputation, or help a very small volume client > who might never reach a volume threshold sufficient to establish > an individual reputation. > </quote> > > So, i think the BTS system should go in this direction. Replacing the > RFC2822.From header for DMARC doesn't seem like a good idea. I don't > want to directly influence the BTS maintainer. They're incredibly busy > in real life. I'm worried my comments might be a burden, so i'll just > vent here on the debian-user forum. Ah, yes, this is off-topic. > > More REFERENCEs: [1], [2], [3] > [1] > https://gitlab.com/soyeomul/Gnus/-/raw/6dc5b9c7addd736a537d51150d459d7dcbd480b5/stuff/rfc5863.eml > [2] > https://gitlab.com/soyeomul/Gnus/-/raw/6dc5b9c7addd736a537d51150d459d7dcbd480b5/stuff/rfc5863.png > [3] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=754809 Also see Tolerating Mailing-List Modifications, < https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-chuang-mailing-list-modifications-04.html >. Jeff
