What I said was that reception of NDRmessages is only a requirement for the SMTP From address, so they are only required for the RFC5322.From address when the two From addresses match. For msiling list messages, tbe two do not match.
My topic was about the ability or inability to detect a never-valid RFC5322 >From address. I am not engaged in any effort to change mailing lists. NP=reject MUST never reject mailing list traffic. If we cannot do that, NP is useless. But we can meet that requirement, if we construct the right test. I can support several different variations of the test, which differences in strictness and complexity. I just cannot support the MX-A-AAAA test. Doug Doug On Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 12:15 PM John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > It appears that Jeremy Harris <[email protected]> said: > >On 18/12/2021 03:47, Douglas Foster wrote: > >> MX checks are a valid tool for assessing SMTP MailFrom addresses, since > the > >> sender is supposed to be ready to accept non-delivery reports and other > >> automated messages. Of course, this has applicability if (but only if) > >> the RFC5322.From domain is the same as the RFC5321.MailFrom domain. > > > >I disagree. It is well-established practice for a mailing list manager > >to accept and process NDRs accepted on the 5321.mailfrom (which differs > >from the 5322.from). > > Jeremy is right. Mailing lists always, and I mean always, put their > own 5321 bounce address on the messages so they can do bounce > management. If you look at the mail from this list, the bounce address > is [email protected]. > > I have to say I am dismayed that we are spending time dealing with such > utterly basic misconceptions here. > > R's, > John > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
