4 ms·
Re. docs - not really, the "via" prefix is not documented in any RFC, it's Google who are ad-hoc defining this and making up a new standard.
by albertgoeswoof 6y ago
Re. docs - not really, the "via" prefix is not documented in any RFC, it's Google who are ad-hoc defining this and making up a new standard.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- RIMR 6y agoThey haven't made up a new standard. The standard already exists. The "via" is just a way of visualizing this standard. Just because the "via" UI element doesn't appear in any RFC doesn't mean it doesn't represent something that does appear in an RFC.
- albertgoeswoof 6y agoIt needs to say something like Reply To MUST match From, if not the email client MUST display a visual representation I don't see that kind of thing in an RFC anywhere though?
- Ayesh 6y agoI think the "problem" shown in this article is when Gmail shows the "via" text when the From domain is different to the signature header. It's very common to have From addresses different to Reply To; a contact form for example should do this.
- supermatt 6y agoDMARC RFC says something along those lines (Identifier Alignment). With DKIM anyone can sign the email, its up to the verifier to decide who to trust and how to represent that. DMARC formalises who you should trust (i.e. the domain key for the sender). p.s. It seems you can click on the "via" in gmail and it gives you some (rubbish and borderline misleading) information.