On 11/25/24 21:25, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On November 25, 2024 9:14:17 PM UTC, "Daniel K." <[email protected]> wrote: >> Investigating this, the conversation above seem to indicate that SPF >> MUST NOT be treated as in alignment if MAIL FROM is NULL, however >> >> [...] >> >> I may be confused here, because from reading the background information >> I'm thinking that the intention is that a NULL envelope sender is meant >> to lead to an SPF fail result (no identifier alignment). >> >> If that's the case, it does not seem to be what's written in dmarcbis, >> nor does it seem possible to rely on SPF's notion of MAIL FROM identity >> for this purpose, as that explicitly includes the postmaster@HELO >> fallback mechanism. >> >> Where did I go wrong? > > Look at RFC 7208, Section 2.4 again: > > When the reverse-path is null, this document defines the "MAIL FROM" identity > to be the mailbox composed of the local-part "postmaster" and the "HELO" > identity (which might or might not have been checked separately before).
Thanks, that was exactly my understanding. I just wanted to make sure that nothing was missed wrt. the desire to disallow NULL envelope senders, which I did not think was actually possible, due to the fallback mechanism. Daniel K. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
