Hi Barry,I just noticed something editorial in nature in the following paragraph in Section 7.5:
A domain that expects to send only targeted messages to account holders - a bank, for example - could have account holders using addresses such as [email protected] (an address that relays the messages to another address with a real mailbox) or [email protected] (a role-based address that does similar relaying for the current head of finance at the association). When such mail is delivered to the actual recipient mailbox...
That first sentence is long and difficult to parse; and domains don't have expectations. I suggest the following alternative in line with existing practice and intent:
Some senders use email addresses from domains that are not associated with a particular SMTP server. For example, Robin Jones might send messages as [email protected] when in reality that person's mail flows through some other bigmailserver.example.com. Another example would be someone who sends from a role-based address such as [email protected]. When such mail is delivered to the actual recipient mailbox...
{yes, I changed the examples. Change them back if you like}
This is intended strictly (so to speak) as a friendly amendment. If
anyone has concerns, I've seen worse writing (from myself, I might add),
and we should just move on.
Eliot On 08.08.2024 20:58, Barry Leiba wrote:
I've asked the document shepherd (Tim Wicinski, and thanks for volunteering to handle this!) to do his final review and get the writeup done, and I've alerted Murray that it's coming soon. I hope those next steps will happen very soon. Barry, as chair _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
