On September 10, 2024 4:59:08 PM UTC, Steven M Jones <[email protected]> wrote: >On 9/10/24 5:06 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> On September 10, 2024 10:20:59 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely<[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Hmm... there are relays that don't change the bounce address. For such >>> cases, the explanation of why SPF checks fail would be different... I'd >>> suggest removing the explanation (that is ", as the incoming ... the >>> sending domain"). It should be well known by now that SPF breaks forwarding. >>> >> I don't think it's safe to assume people know this. I do think the point >> is worth addressing. Perhaps adding (if the Mail From address is not >> rewritten by the relay) after necessarily fail SPF checks would address the >> point. > > >I agree that generally, if there's anyplace we should favor being more >explicit than implicit, it's an IETF specification document. > >Is a parenthetical like this too disruptive to the flow of the text? > >> When such mail is delivered to the actual recipient mailbox it will fail SPF >> checks (provided the rfc5321.MailFrom was not altered), as the sending IP >> address will be that of example.edu or association.example, and not an >> address authorized for the sending domain. > Looks good to me.
Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
