Re: [dmarc-discuss] DMARC and null path

2016-05-15 Thread Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss
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

2016-05-15 Thread Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss
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

2016-05-13 Thread A. Schulze via dmarc-discuss
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)

Re: [dmarc-discuss] DMARC and null path

2016-05-13 Thread Scott Kitterman via dmarc-discuss
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

2016-05-13 Thread A. Schulze via dmarc-discuss
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

2016-05-13 Thread Terry Zink via dmarc-discuss
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

2016-05-13 Thread A. Schulze via dmarc-discuss
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

2016-05-09 Thread Franck Martin via dmarc-discuss
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

Re: [dmarc-discuss] DMARC and null path

2016-05-09 Thread Scott Kitterman via dmarc-discuss
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

Re: [dmarc-discuss] DMARC and null path

2016-05-09 Thread Maarten Oelering via dmarc-discuss
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