On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > This paragraph appears in the DMARC spec because the operators > > participating all agreed that it should be part-and-parcel of this > > operating profile of email. It's not as happenstance as this sounds so > > far; the very thrust of DMARC is to make the From: content believable, > > and permitting a nonexistent domain name to make it to the inbox > > contradicts that goal. > > > The goal, as you state it, is at the level of seeking world peace. It > is very laudable and and very, very broad. It covers vastly more than > the scope of DMARC. > > DMARC is a specific bit of technology working towards that broader goal. > That something happens to fall within this very broad scope does not > automatically justify documenting it within the much narrower scope of a > detailed specification, unless it is part of that specification's > technology. > > The MX record check has no /technical/ relationship to the /technical/ > details of DMARC. > > Please note that I'm not commenting on the efficacy of the record check, > but on the need to document it in a place that makes sense for the full > range of its implementers. > > There are, and will continue to be, plenty of operators using that check > but not DMARC. That simple fact provides a very pragmatic reason for > moving its specification into some document outside of DMARC. > Although I've already removed the paragraph under discussion, one more point occurred to me: There was text in there until recently that required rejection of messages with multi-valued From: fields. People complained about this, and so we backed that down to "are typically rejected" (removing RFC2119 language), and that seems to have satisfied the critics; as I understand it, this works under the "profile" argument I made earlier. How would this be any different? -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
