Re: [dmarc-discuss] submission via google / dmarc fail

Sorry, I wasn't on dmarc-discuss for some reason, looking at the archive: A. Schulze via dmarc-discuss: > > I like to point to that open topic without any answer I hoped to get > from Google > > simple setup: > gmail user send with RFC5322.From *@googlemail.com via google using a > smartphone. >

Re: [dmarc-discuss] dmarc-discuss Digest, Vol 51, Issue 11

UNSUBSCRIBE ME PLEASE On 16-04-19 15:00, dmarc-discuss-requ...@dmarc.org wrote: Send dmarc-discuss mailing list submissions to dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss or, via email, send

Re: [dmarc-discuss] DMARC and null path

The definition of RFC7489.MAILFROM is not the same as RFC5321.Mailfrom RFC7489.MAILFROM is RFC5321.MailFrom if it is not empty, otherwise it is postmaster@ On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Maarten Oelering wrote: > Hi Franck, > > You explained this before, but also

Re: [dmarc-discuss] DMARC and null path

There is a subtle distinction involved here. RFC 7208 (and RFC 4408 before it) don't literally say to use RFC5321.Helo if RFC5321.Mailfrom is null. What they say to to construct a MailFrom using postmas...@rfc5321.helo. That's the difference between RFC5321.Mailfrom and RFC7208/4408.Mailfrom

Re: [dmarc-discuss] DMARC and null path

Hi Franck, You explained this before, but also then I didn’t quite understand. First you say there is the SPF check on HELO and on MAILFROM. That I know and understand. Then you say DMARC only uses the RFC5321.Mailfrom, but which includes falls back on RFC5321.Helo. But isn’t that the same