On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 17:40:39 Franck Martin wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Scott Kitterman" <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 2:49:01 PM > > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ... and two more tiny nits, while I'm at it > > > > > > > > > > Last time I had stats, it was about 10% as common as Mail From oriented > > records. Much less common, but I wouldn't say rare. When done this way, > > there isn't a singe "SPF" result, there are two: SPF/Mail From and > > SPF/HELO. Only SPF/Mail From is relevant to DMARC. > > Why do you say that? > > DMARC takes the result from SPF (pass/fail/...) and the string that SPF used > for this result be it mail from or helo, to check for alignment. > > Did I miss something?
DMARC takes the SPF result and the Mail From as an input (which in the case of a null Mail From is a synthetic Mail From built using HELO, but that's just a coincidence). SPF isn't just a result (pass, fail, etc), it also has a domain and a related identity. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
