On Thursday, October 09, 2014 23:28:41 Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote: > On 10/08/2014 09:34 PM, Tim Draegen wrote: > > On Oct 8, 2014, at 3:20 PM, Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> wrote: > >>> A bit ahead of the WG's focus. > >> > >> We have one? > > > > Ha! The WG is supposed to be focused on collecting all known issues > > between DMARC and indirect email flows. Based on the collected set of > > issues, we'll then switch gears and argue the heck out of possible > > solutions. > FYI, I added some information about Sieve 'redirect', 'addheader', > 'deleteheader' and 'replace' actions to the Wiki. > > A more general comment: reading the wiki and the discussions on this > list, it get the impression that we seem to focus more on the issues > related to the 'DKIM part of DMARC' then on issues related to the 'SPF > part of DMARC'. Is my observation correct, do we tend to forget SPF here?
Possible, but also we (in SPFbis) just finished up RFC 7208 and it goes into a lot of detail about ways SPF can fail and what can be done about it. I don't think there's a lot of fertile ground to plow. If someone has the time/motivation, it might be useful to see what of the SPF failure mitigations cause problems with DMARC alignment (as an example, SRS will allow the mail from to be changed when a message is forwarded, so the forwarder's SPF can be used, but the doesn't preserve DMARC alignment). Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
