On Thursday, January 22, 2015 17:59:42 Kurt Andersen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]>
> 
> wrote:
> > On January 22, 2015 6:35:59 PM EST, Kurt Andersen <[email protected]>
> > 
> > wrote:
> > >On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]>
> > >
> > >wrote:
> > >> If I were configuring and SPF verifier to provide an input to DMARC
> > >> processing, then I would probably configure it not to reject based on
> > >> SPF fail.  Then the problem doesn't arise.
> > >
> > >Are you suggesting that the DMARC spec should say that people SHOULD
> > >configure (some would say usurp) SPF in such a way? I seem to recall
> > >some
> > >contentious discussions about such usurpation during SPFbis (though I
> > >could
> > >be conflating arguments from another context).
> > 
> > Of course. Section 6.7 discusses this in general terms. If you want to
> > only use SPF as an input to DMARC, then it wouldn't make sense to set up
> > your system to reject mail just based on SPF.
> > 
> > Specifying receiver policy was somewhat contentious in SPFbis.  In the
> > end, RFC7208 specifies almost, if not, exactly the same amount of receiver
> > policy as did RFC4408 (almost none).
> 
> I think that the crux of the issue is this:
> 1) The DMARC spec was written with 4408 as context. That remains true
> today, except that in the meantime 7208 was finalized (thanks to SPFbis)
> and Murray was seeking to keep up with the times by following the "7208
> obsoletes 4408" statement.
> 2) The key problem is that 7208 changes the checking precedence.  Here's
> what the two specs actually say:
> 4408, section 2.2: "SPF clients MUST check the "MAIL FROM" identity."
> 7208, section 2.4: "SPF verifiers MUST check the "MAIL FROM" identity if a
> "HELO" check either has not been performed or has not reached a definitive
> policy. . ."
> 
> My recommendation is to take -12 and amend it to change the SPF reference
> back to 4408 and let the WG wrestle through how to handle the change that
> was introduced in 7208.

If you've already rejected the message (e.g. HELO check reached a definitive 
result) the DMARC doesn't care.  There's no relevant change between 4408 and 
7208.

Scott K

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Reply via email to