On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 8:57 PM, wrote:
> Trent Adams writes:
>
> > -
> > It is important to note that identifier alignment cannot occur, and
> > DMARC determination applied, with a message that is not valid per RFC
> > 5322 [MAIL]. This is particularly true when a message has a malformed
> >
Trent Adams writes:
> -
> It is important to note that identifier alignment cannot occur, and
> DMARC determination applied, with a message that is not valid per RFC
> 5322 [MAIL]. This is particularly true when a message has a malformed
> or absent RFC5322.From field.
> -
I occasionally
On 11/6/14 12:06 PM, ned+dm...@mrochek.com wrote:
>
>
> I have a few comments on the base specification.
>
> In section 3.1.4, the paragraph
>
>It is important to note that identifier alignment cannot occur with a
>message that is not valid per [MAIL], particularly one with a
>malf
That's fine if any of the domains have an associated DMARC record - of any
sort. My concern is the case where none of them do, or when there
are no domains present.
In that case I agree with you, it's none of DMARC's business what happens.
For From: headers with address-free groups, recall tha
On Nov 7, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 10:06 AM, John Levine wrote:
> >1) Evaluate all the domains you find, and if any of them have published
> >DMARC policies, apply the strictest one ...
>
> Given the anti-phishing goals of DMARC, I don't see how an
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 10:06 AM, John Levine wrote:
> >1) Evaluate all the domains you find, and if any of them have published
> >DMARC policies, apply the strictest one ...
>
> Given the anti-phishing goals of DMARC, I don't see how anything else
> makes any sense. Or you could skip a step, say
>What sort of remedy would you suggest here? Off the top of my head, here
>are some suggestions:
>
>1) Evaluate all the domains you find, and if any of them have published
>DMARC policies, apply the strictest one ...
Given the anti-phishing goals of DMARC, I don't see how anything else
makes any