*
*
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)
