On Jul 16, 2013, at 8:46 PM, Roland Turner <[email protected]>
 wrote:

> On 07/17/2013 12:15 AM, Douglas Otis wrote:
> 
>> >From a specification standpoint, it seems odd to invalidate email from 
>> >otherwise uninvolved domains that are technically RFC compliant. Wouldn't 
>> >such specifications make the DMARC specification RFC ignorant? RFC5322 is a 
>> >draft standard and RFC6854 is standards track. Requiring rejection of 
>> >otherwise valid messages is hostile to those following standards.
> 
> This viewpoint is incorrect and reflects an error in understanding that 
> senders frequently make.
> 
> An SMTP server (or the host that it runs on) is the property of a receiver. 
> When a sender offers a message for delivery, the sender is asking the 
> receiver to extend a delivery privilege, a privilege that the receiver is 
> free to decline for any reason or for no reason. This 
> commercial/organisational relationship is the context in which SMTP operates, 
> not the other way around. The SMTP specification can never compel a receiver 
> to accept a message. If the specification appears to have this effect (I 
> don't believe that RFC 5321 has this effect, but perhaps I have missed an 
> interpretation that you are relying upon), then one might realistically 
> describe the specification as reality-ignorant.
> 
> Any time an RFC and reality diverge, it it the RFC that is reality-ignorant, 
> not reality that is RFC-ignorant.
> 
> If it happens that the DMARC specification reflects reality better than 
> existing RFCs - even standards track ones - then once again, it is those RFCs 
> that are in error, not the DMARC specification.
> 

I like to put it that way when people rely too much in theories (or 
specifications): The map is right, it is the road which is at the wrong place.


_______________________________________________
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