On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Dave Crocker <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> > I disagree. DMARC operators all seem to apply this practice, so it's > > correct to say that if you play this game, you reject mail from > > non-existent domains. Essentially in this way DMARC is a profile of > > RFC5321/RFC5322, which is perfectly acceptable. We are not updating > > those standards here, merely profiling them. > > The fact that its use happens to correlate with DMARC use is a > distraction. For example, there are plenty of operators who use apply > this check but do not use DMARC. If the test is documented in a > specification, it should be in /one/ specification. Putting it into the > DMARC spec means it has to be documented somewhere else, for the folk > who don't use DMARC. > 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. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
