On Thursday, March 07, 2013 01:11:44 PM Carl S. Gutekunst wrote: > How should the DMARC alignment checks be performed on messages that have > a null RFC5321.MailFrom? > > This came to my attention because our reports from LinkedIn suggest that > when the bounce address is null, they check the SPF HELO Identity > instead. That seems reasonable, but I don't see anything about it in the > DMARC spec. > > Franck, if you could weigh in on this it would be much appreciated. > > I've asked our Ops folks to create SPF records for our outbound > hostnames, something we should have done long ago. Then I'll wait for > new reports from LinkedIn to see if that changes the SPF "fail" to "pass".
The fallback to HELO is in the SPF RFC, RFC 4408, section 2.4: > Note that the <domain> argument may not be a well-formed domain name. > For example, if the reverse-path was null, then the EHLO/HELO domain > is used, with its associated problems (see Section 2.1). In these > cases, check_host() is defined in Section 4.3 to return a "None" > result. Scott K _______________________________________________ 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)
