On Friday, January 23, 2015 12:45:02 Franck Martin wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Scott Kitterman" <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 10:14:56 PM > > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] questions on the spec, was ... and two more tiny > > nits, while I'm at it> > > On Thursday, January 22, 2015 23:52:58 Franck Martin wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > > I know the receiver can do whatever of the result, and anyhow the > > > receiver, > > > its rules. > > > > > > but I'm sorry I don't read anywhere in RFC7208 where f() is defined. > > > > > > spfresult in > > > (pass,fail,softfail,permfail,tmpfail,none,...)=f(check_host(HELO > > > identity, > > > IP), check_host(MAIL FROM identity,IP)) > > > > > > it may be clear to you, but it is certainly not for me. Would you please > > > define f()? > > > > > > (note calling MAIL FROM a combination of RFC5321.mailfrom and > > > [email protected] does not help clarity either). > > > > Probably not, but I don't know how else to have dealt with it. > > First thanks, for describing in details your implementation. Very useful. > > > f() doesn't exist. SPF's check_host() has inputs and an output. If you > > call it twice then you have two outputs to decide how to aggregate. > > Yes this is where the point is, RFC7208 does not define how to aggregate the > results. This is the part which is not clear in the spec, and should be > clearly spelled out, me thinks.
I guess that's where we'll have to disagree. I don't know what RFC 7208 could have said beyond "How to aggregate SPF HELO and SPF Mail From checks is a matter of local policy". That doesn't really help much. Personally, I don't think they can be successfully aggregated into a single SPF result since they are about different things. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
