IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Review of draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-04

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 23 April 2014 17:37 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA8A11A042B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1jdEQx6ja4ZO for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 901301A042F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s3NHbT7b023808 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:37:33 -0700
Message-ID: <5357F9D7.3050203@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:35:19 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mrex@sap.com
Subject: Re: Review of draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-04
References: <20140423003045.EBE6F1ACDC@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp>
In-Reply-To: <20140423003045.EBE6F1ACDC@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:37:36 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/CBg-t4Or-PmrfWwZnsy5OIE5sxE
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, Nevil Brownlee <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:37:42 -0000

On 4/22/2014 5:30 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
>> Why is there such a recommendation?  What is a mail receiver?  I am 
>> > asking the question as there is "receiving SMTP server" in that sentence.
> That would be silly.  RFC5322.From might contain no DNS domain to begin with.


That was legal for RFC 733.  Apparently I dropped it for RFC 822.

The idea of an online surrogate (Sender:) for an offline author (From:)
was a friendly construct, but it didn't prove useful.

So a From: field address with no domain name has never been valid for
"Internet" email.

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email