Re: [dmarc-discuss] DMARC and null path

Scott Kitterman wrote: >> Am 13.05.2016 um 22:35 schrieb Terry Zink via dmarc-discuss: >>> In Office 365 it would. Others' implementations may vary. >> >> "may or may not" - is that really the intention of DMARC? > > I think RFC 7489, paragraph 3.1.2 is very explicit about this. It is >

Re: [dmarc-discuss] DMARC and null path

A. Schulze wrote: > Am 13.05.2016 um 22:35 schrieb Terry Zink via dmarc-discuss: >> In Office 365 it would. Others' implementations may vary. > > "may or may not" - is that really the intention of DMARC? That is how DMARC is specified, yes. Intention is a bit harder: - the ideal is that all

Re: [dmarc-discuss] DMARC and null path

Am 13.05.2016 um 23:10 schrieb Scott Kitterman via dmarc-discuss: I think RFC 7489, paragraph 3.1.2 is very explicit about this. It is supposed to pass and if it doesn't it's a bug. you mean "RFC5321.HELO identity is not ... used exept when required to "fake" an otherwise null

Re: [dmarc-discuss] DMARC and null path

On May 13, 2016 4:56:40 PM EDT, "A. Schulze via dmarc-discuss" wrote: > > >Am 13.05.2016 um 22:35 schrieb Terry Zink via dmarc-discuss: >> In Office 365 it would. Others' implementations may vary. > >"may or may not" - is that really the intention of DMARC? I think

Re: [dmarc-discuss] DMARC and null path

Am 13.05.2016 um 22:35 schrieb Terry Zink via dmarc-discuss: In Office 365 it would. Others' implementations may vary. "may or may not" - is that really the intention of DMARC? Andreas ___ dmarc-discuss mailing list dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org

Re: [dmarc-discuss] DMARC and null path

In Office 365 it would. Others' implementations may vary. -- Terry -Original Message- From: dmarc-discuss [mailto:dmarc-discuss-boun...@dmarc.org] On Behalf Of A. Schulze via dmarc-discuss Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 1:23 PM To: dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] DMARC

Re: [dmarc-discuss] DMARC and null path

Am 09.05.2016 um 22:42 schrieb Franck Martin via dmarc-discuss: RFC7489.MAILFROM is RFC5321.MailFrom if it is not empty, otherwise it is postmaster@ Hello Franck, does that mean a message could pass DMARC if - it's send from a host sending "mail.example.com" as HELO parameter - have an

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