They're not? I thought RFC5598 defined one in terms of the other. -MSK
On 3/11/13 3:03 PM, "Carl S. Gutekunst" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> carl, this is accounted for in the current working draft, not yet >> released. >> >> as a general principle, dmarc doesn't modify the operation of >> underlying authentication mechanisms. so if a supported underlying >> authentication mechanism produces an aligned result in the normal >> course of its operation, it will be accepted by dmarc. > >That all sounds good. I think it would help to incorporate the language >of RFC 4408 into the DMARC specification: e.g., use "MAIL FROM Identity" >and not 5321.MailFrom when referring to the behavior of SPF. The two are >not the same. > ><csg> >_______________________________________________ >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) _______________________________________________ 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)
