I just posted -12 which includes fixes for all of the inputs I had seen except for the following one:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:59 PM, Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote: > In Section 2.1, re SPF: > > > SPF can provide two Authenticated Identifiers. The DMARC relevant > > Authenticated Identifiers that SPF provides is the RFC7208.MAILFROM > > [RFC7208] based on the RFC5321.MailFrom [RFC5321] domain, or, if the > > RFC5321.MailFrom address is absent (as in the case of "bounce" > > messages), on the RFC5321.HELO/EHLO SMTP domain. The SPF validated > > domain in RFC7208.MAILFROM must be part of the same Organizational > > Domain as the domain in the RFC5322.From header field to be aligned. > > It is important to note that even when an SPF record exists for the > > domain in RFC5322.From [RFC5322], SPF will not authenticate it unless > > it is also the domain checked by SPF. Also note that the > > RFC7208.MAILFROM definition is different from the RFC5321.MailFrom > > [RFC5321] definition. > > This section is sufficiently dense that I would suggest that an example > would be very helpful. Thee examples could go here or they could go > elsewhere, but a handful would definitely help. I'm happy to develop > some, if people are comfortable with that. Similarly, a DKIM example > could be useful. We could probably borrow a message from this mailing > list to prove the point. > > In addition we should probably be matching case between RFC 7208 and > this document as we did for RFC 5321 so that someone who is searching > can easily find the name, and so "RFC7208.mailfrom". > I've been noodling on how to "fluff up" (in a non-pejorative sense) the dense language that Elliot pointed out but did not want to delay the other fixes any longer while I figure out a way to tackle this particular point. --Kurt
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
