>> -Element's minOccurs stays 1 and ‘null reverse-path’ messages get an
>> empty 'envelope_from' value
> This option is easy to grasp, as it parallels SMTP's mail from:<>
After some thought I think this would be the best solution. Not omitting the
element, keeping the MinOccurs '1', but all
On Thu 08/Aug/2019 14:52:58 +0200 Freddie Leeman wrote:
> So how should 'null reverse-path'-messages be processed (in the future)? I
> see three options:
>
> - Element's minOccurs gets changed to 0 and ‘null reverse-path’ messages
> are added without the 'envelope_from' element
> - Ele
So how should 'null reverse-path'-messages be processed (in the future)? I see
three options:
- Element's minOccurs gets changed to 0 and ‘null reverse-path’ messages
are added without the 'envelope_from' element
- Element's minOccurs stays 1 and ‘null reverse-path’ messages get an
die Leeman
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: John Levine [mailto:jo...@taugh.com]
Verzonden: dinsdag 6 augustus 2019 22:24
Aan: dmarc@ietf.org
CC: fred...@leemankuiper.nl
Onderwerp: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Should 'undeliverable mail' be included in DMARC
rua reports?
In article <009c01d
In article <009c01d54c69$39745520$ac5cff60$@leemankuiper.nl> you write:
>I've noticed that, even though RFC7489 appendix C states that the
>'envelope_from' element has a minOccurs of '1', this element is missing
>quite frequently.
It's not missing, it's empty. That's not the same thing.
R's,
Jo
I've noticed that, even though RFC7489 appendix C states that the
'envelope_from' element has a minOccurs of '1', this element is missing
quite frequently. This is probably due to the fact that some messages have a
'null reverse-path'. The RFC5321 (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) chapter
4.5.5 allow