You are correct, and the erratum is wrong.
It appears that Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) <[email protected]> said: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >Dear Authors and DMARC group, > >In my continuing review of errata posted against RFC 7489, my view is >that the following erratum should be rejected, and I intend to do so in >the next month unless given good cause not to do so. My reading is that >the reporter has quoted from the wrong section of RFC 5321, and that we >are not discussion Message Submission Servers. > >Eliot (ISE) > >*Status: Reported >Type: Technical >Publication Format(s) : TEXT* >Reported By: Borislav Petrov >Date Reported: 2018-11-09 > >Section 10.3. says: > >Everything about it.. > >Notes: > >DMARC relies on inspecting header information. This section suggestion >is not allowed by rfc5321 and contradicts it: > >...a relay SMTP has no need to inspect or >act upon the header section or body of the message data and MUST NOT >do so except to add its own "Received:" header field.. > >So the correct behaviour shoud be only the second option - 2xy and >decide what to do after that being silent or not. > >-=-=-=-=-=- >[Alternative: text/html] >-=-=-=-=-=- _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
