On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 10:48 AM Tero Kivinen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Change first sentence of 5.3.3 from: > > For each Authentication Mechanism underlying DMARC, perform the > required check to determine if an Authenticated Identifier > (#authenticated-identifier) exists for the message if such check has > not already been performed. > > to > > For each Authentication Mechanism underlying DMARC (currently SPF > and DKIM), the Mail Receivers (#mail-receiver) MUST perform the > required check to determine if an Authenticated Identifier > (#authenticated-identifier) exists for the message. > > (I removed the "if such check has not already been performed, as this > does not specify when this check is done, it can be done in this phase > or it could have been done earlier, it is just enough that required > checks are done at some point. Having that text there is just > confusing.) > Noting that rev -38 with a Conformance Requirements section now exists, I disagree with two bits of your proposed text here: 1. I see no need for the parenthetical "(currently SPF and DKIM)", as it is my opinion that not mentioning SPF and DKIM specifically here future proofs this part of the document against the need for a change if and when the list of Authentication Mechanisms underlying DMARC changes. 2. I submit that the "if such check has not already been performed" is necessary language to guard against the possible confusion on the part of an implementer who might wonder why an SPF check performed early in the SMTP transaction (right after MAIL FROM) would have to be performed again at this point, as your proposed language seems to indicate it should in my reading. -- Todd Herr Some Guy in VA LLC [email protected] 703-220-4153 Book Time With Me: https://calendar.app.google/tGDuDzbThBdTp3Wx8
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
