I think we discussed it a bit in SPFbis, the terms there are rather confusing...
On 3/11/13 1:34 PM, "Murray Kucherawy" <[email protected]> wrote: >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) _______________________________________________ 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)
