> That said, the substitution of RFC5321.MailFrom for an absent RFC5322.From > is a sufficiently common practice that there may be sense in calling this > out in the Security Considerations (that a Mail Receiver which does this > should also apply the DMARC algorithm as though the synthesised RFC5322.From > header was actually present).
Yes, that's essentially what I am suggesting. If this became a standard/suggested configuration for receivers, this would tie up this particular corner case. -- Mason _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
