Thanks for your comments.
The language in the quoted document about "multiple from messages are
usually rejected" was interesting. It reflects what I would intend to do,
and what I think others should do, but I assumed that we could not
explicitly advocate for that, since we could be accused of
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 3:27 AM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have trouble with this statement in section 5.7.1:
>
> "Multi-valued RFC5322.From header fields with multiple domains MUST be
> exempt from DMARC checking."
>
> This language will serve as an invite
It appears that Todd Herr said:
>The entire paragraph from which that sentence was pulled reads:
>
>The case of a syntactically valid multi-valued RFC5322.From header field
>presents a particular challenge. When a single RFC5322.From header field
>contains multiple addresses, it is possible that
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 6:27 AM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have trouble with this statement in section 5.7.1:
>
> "Multi-valued RFC5322.From header fields with multiple domains MUST be
> exempt from DMARC checking."
>
> This language will serve as an invite
I have trouble with this statement in section 5.7.1:
"Multi-valued RFC5322.From header fields with multiple domains MUST be
exempt from DMARC checking."
This language will serve as an invite for spammers to create multiple-from
messages to ensure that they will evade DMARC. To avoid creating
