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
>
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
se null reverse-path" ?
Andreas
_______
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
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
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
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
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
t;, in which case
>> we use the HELO/EHLO domain. That would allow a DMARC pass in the absence
>> of a DKIM signature.
>>
>> -- Terry
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: dmarc-discuss [mailto:dmarc-discuss-boun...@dmarc.org] On Behalf
>> Of Sist
nless it is <>, in which case
> > we use the HELO/EHLO domain. That would allow a DMARC pass in the absence
> > of a DKIM signature.
> >
> > -- Terry
> >
> > -Original Message-----
> > From: dmarc-discuss [mailto:dmarc-discuss-boun...@dmarc.org
> > <mail
s-boun...@dmarc.org>] On Behalf Of Sistemisti Posta via
> dmarc-discuss
> Sent: Monday, May 9, 2016 3:38 AM
> To: dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org <mailto:dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org>
> Subject: [dmarc-discuss] DMARC and null path
>
> Hello DMARC users,
>
>because I'm new in D
10 matches
Mail list logo