On Jul 16, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Andreas Schulze <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> "The domain name extracted from a message's RFC5322.From field is the primary
> identifier in the DMARC mechanism."
>
> RFC5322, Secion 3.6.2 allow multiple originators in a from field. In this
> case there must be a sender field
> present.
>
> I did not find any statements about this situation in the draft.
> I expect the primary identifier would be the RFC5322.Sender, right?
>
> Or is dmarc only applicable if RFC5322.From has exactly one originator?
> Also that isn't declared in the draft.
>
> Anyway: I think multiple RFC5322.From are nice and there may be academical
> use cases
> but it adds unnecessary complexity in todays applications.
> Maybe it could be "defined" out of the way :-)
>
> Andreas
Hi Andreas,
This section of the spec mentions multiple Froms, it's a tricky thing:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-01#section-10.1
About the Sender: header:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-01#appendix-A.3
FWIW, allowing multiple "policy keys" adds quite a bit of complexity. Which
one takes precedent? Does allowing multiple keys allow a domain to send on
behalf of another even though the other domain publishes an explicit reject
policy? Big can of worms for no benefit.
HTH,
=- Tim
_______________________________________________
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)
