On 10/11/2012 03:42, Franck Martin wrote:
I would prefer that the email gets rejected because it is a malformed
email, and this is at a different layer in the SMTP stack.
Agreed, but as plenty of receivers don't do this (and indeed,
intentionally synthesise the missing header), there is a relevant gap here.
- Roland
On 11/9/12 11:32 AM, "Mason Schmitt" <[email protected]> wrote:
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)
--
Roland Turner | Director, Labs
TrustSphere Pte Ltd | 3 Phillip Street #13-03, Singapore 048693
Mobile: +65 96700022 | Skype: roland.turner
[email protected] | http://www.trustsphere.com/
_______________________________________________
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)
