On 7/16/13 8:46 PM, "Roland Turner" <[email protected]> wrote: >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 don't agree with the first generalization. RFCs specifying the format of an Internet message have existed for a really long time. It's reality that decided to diverge, largely out of laziness: Email generating code would be sloppy and cut corners, and user pressure caused mail submission agents and other services to tolerate it rather than be strict about it. We're left with a system where lots of software now supports the lazy implementations. There's a draft making its way through the IETF now that describes this situation, pleads with software to become strict once again, and then goes into a list of common malformations and provides advice about how to handle or interpret them. But even that advice about safe handling doesn't render those messages compliant; they are still broken. DMARC's acknowledgement of reality doesn't make those RFCs wrong, nor does it excuse various components' lax enforcement of the rules. -MSK _______________________________________________ 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)
