Re: [dmarc-ietf] Errors in RFC 8601, was Question about changes introduced by erratum

John Levine <> Sun, 22 March 2020 15:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A6193A0890 for <>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 08:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.851
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.b=L3vkydPx; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.b=VJVIvZU6
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bn_Dm4Y43eRj for <>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 08:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B180B3A088D for <>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 08:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 68400 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2020 15:44:38 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; =?utf-8?q?h=3Ddate?= =?utf-8?q?=3Amessage-id=3Afrom=3Ato=3Acc=3Asubject=3Ain-reply-to=3Amime-ver?= =?utf-8?q?sion=3Acontent-type=3Acontent-transfer-encoding=3B?= =?utf-8?q?s=3D10b2e=2E5e7787e6=2Ek2003=3B_bh=3DeH4hCFv2ZrM42csNYLO+E2otG7qc?= =?utf-8?q?QFPkVL9M67kSXRg=3D=3B_b=3DL3vkydPx3zRnNYJKGeKl2fnDERjclAOQvJuG5U8?= =?utf-8?q?OEuHtU/lboZl/TkM858FKXzefuXTbxegvtVGk0UJjWeofIiQqGpbvmY3J5/cE8FKH?= =?utf-8?q?SFxxrtVJQEpKt86+vUurW8ULC955aoCnjzE1cWicLN9uPlkcfJT/f2u2lcR4Vsx53?= =?utf-8?q?bfmK6UZLHrfvinhZ8uF7zRPLbS1TQoBFsnh7CojZ1rPXoirODqeEvlqrpanor8EMB?= =?utf-8?q?oOX+KghLSggaz9/yZjSBV/?=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; =?utf-8?q?h=3Ddate?= =?utf-8?q?=3Amessage-id=3Afrom=3Ato=3Acc=3Asubject=3Ain-reply-to=3Amime-ver?= =?utf-8?q?sion=3Acontent-type=3Acontent-transfer-encoding=3B?= =?utf-8?q?s=3D10b2e=2E5e7787e6=2Ek2003=3B_bh=3DeH4hCFv2ZrM42csNYLO+E2otG7qc?= =?utf-8?q?QFPkVL9M67kSXRg=3D=3B_b=3DVJVIvZU69bON3oWWV9HHqk8JYhv5iuT1Xp+r2Cc?= =?utf-8?q?S248DpvdL/2dgRKdgV+OOAeJgnW22MCH0Jm6VMKMiGn+icwI0fB6B7ie/Jyx4ZXqu?= =?utf-8?q?T6wrq47RbKYO6gNqe6xykaXLH1j+MvBXq9jH1Xlk8+hDEjRxaD8ERMsIHF4dMfuZ2?= =?utf-8?q?DqrO+Km36ctK+eMV9j+v0rstz+a5luIsaHows3VeqeEuKC+wbZKebXGF+/fP7gd39?= =?utf-8?q?5TgqqF6VooOjBTuv5aLQ2u?=
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 22 Mar 2020 15:44:38 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 14E02166129A; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 11:44:37 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 22 Mar 2020 11:44:37 -0400
Message-Id: <20200322154438.14E02166129A@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Errors in RFC 8601, was Question about changes introduced by erratum
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 15:44:42 -0000

In article <> you write:
>.... [SPF] on the other hand
>has an A-R example that is domain-name only, so I assumed that
>smtp.mailfrom in spf context was more loosely defined via RFC7001's
>pvalue (that is, with the optional local-part@).

I'm pretty sure the example is wrong, and was copied verbatim from
wrong examples going back to RFC5451.

RFC8601 sec 2.7.2 refers to RFC 7208 for "mailfrom".  RFC 7208 sec 1.1.3
says that the MAIL FROM, which I whink we can assume is the same thing,
is the RFC5321.MailFrom from RFC 5598.  RFC 5598 says that's a mailbox,
not a domain name.

gain, if you look at the existing implementations, they put the
address in spf smtp.mailfrom, not just the domain name.


PS: I have always found it frustrating that I have to chase through a
dozen documents to find the syntax of A-R.  I understand the desire
not to try to keep two copies of definitions in sync, but as we've
seen, that doesn't always lead to the result you want.