Thank to both of you. @Murray: Re-reading the sentences with your input, that would make sense
@Todd: Indeed, DMARCbis is pretty clear about it. I look forward for DMARCbis to be published, as that will lead to one less edge-case to worry about. Regards, Damien On Jan 11, 2024, at 13:46, Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote: In addition to what Todd offered: On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 11:51 AM Damien Alexandre <Damien.Alexandre=40vadesecure....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40vadesecure....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: The RFC first states: "Messages bearing a single RFC5322.From field containing multiple addresses (and, thus, multiple domain names to be evaluated) are typically rejected because the sorts of mail normally protected by DMARC do not use this format;” And a few lines below: "The case of a syntactically valid multi-valued RFC5322.From field presents a particular challenge. The process in this case is to apply the DMARC check using each of those domains found in the RFC5322.From field as the Author Domain and apply the most strict policy selected among the checks that fail.” I find the two propositions quite contradictory and not sure which one should be applied. What I recall from when we wrote that was that the first paragraph really means "Most MTAs reject this anyway so it shouldn't even get to your DMARC filter" and the second means "If it does get to you, here's how you should probably react." -MSK, participating _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
