Re: [dmarc-ietf] questions on the spec, was ... and two more tiny nits, while I'm at it

[Franck Martin]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Kitterman" <skl...@kitterman.com>
> To: dmarc@ietf.org
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 10:14:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] questions on the spec, was ... and two more tiny 
> nits, while I'm at it
> 
> On Thursday, January 22, 2015 23:52:58 Franck Martin wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > 
> > 
> > I know the receiver can do whatever of the result, and anyhow the receiver,
> > its rules.
> > 
> > but I'm sorry I don't read anywhere in RFC7208 where f() is defined.
> > 
> > spfresult in
> > (pass,fail,softfail,permfail,tmpfail,none,...)=f(check_host(HELO identity,
> > IP), check_host(MAIL FROM identity,IP))
> > 
> > it may be clear to you, but it is certainly not for me. Would you please
> > define f()?
> > 
> > (note calling MAIL FROM a combination of RFC5321.mailfrom and
> > postmas...@rfc5321.helo does not help clarity either).
> 
> Probably not, but I don't know how else to have dealt with it.

First thanks, for describing in details your implementation. Very useful.

> 
> f() doesn't exist.  SPF's check_host() has inputs and an output.  If you call
> it twice then you have two outputs to decide how to aggregate.
> 

Yes this is where the point is, RFC7208 does not define how to aggregate the 
results. This is the part which is not clear in the spec, and should be clearly 
spelled out, me thinks.

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc