Ah, sorry, I thought you were saying they're different things.  What
you're actually asking for is consistent terminology.  Understood now.

-MSK

On 3/11/13 4:28 PM, "Carl S. Gutekunst" <[email protected]> wrote:

>*
>*
>>> 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.
>>>     
>> They're not?  I thought RFC5598 defined one in terms of the other.
>
>Hey Murray. The RFC4408 "MAIL FROM" Identity is unique to SPF/Sender-ID,
>and would be (IMHO) out of scope for RFC 5598. Per Section 2.2, it's a
>computed value derived from the SMTP MAIL command and the "HELO"
>Identity, which is defined in Section 2.1.
>
>    2.2.  The MAIL FROM Identity
>
>       The "MAIL FROM" identity derives from the SMTP MAIL command (see
>       [RFC2821]).  This command supplies the "reverse-path" for a
>message,
>       which generally consists of the sender mailbox, and is the mailbox
>to
>       which notification messages are to be sent if there are problems
>       delivering the message.
>
>       [RFC2821] allows the reverse-path to be null (see Section 4.5.5 in
>       RFC 2821).  In this case, there is no explicit sender mailbox, and
>       such a message can be assumed to be a notification message from the
>       mail system itself.  When the reverse-path is null, this document
>       defines the "MAIL FROM" identity to be the mailbox composed of the
>       localpart "postmaster" and the "HELO" identity (which may or may
>not
>       have been checked separately before).
>
>Really, the answer I needed was "perform the SPF check for DMARC exactly
>as specified in RFC4408." It was just a suggestion on my part the DMARC
>spec would be more clear if it said "MAIL FROM Identity" rather than
>"5321.MailFrom" when referring to SPF checks.
>
>(If someone had told me 5 years ago that I would be hair-splitting over
>the semantics of RFC 4408, I would have run off to Nepal and become a
>monk....)
>
><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)

Reply via email to