Re: What I've been wondering about the DMARC problem

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 16/04/2014 18:58, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2014, at 21:38, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> The mailman fix is worse than the disease. I think the .INVALID fix is
>> much better, because Reply-all will still work.
> 
> Reply-all should still work with the Mailman fix; 

It doesn't work *properly*. Firstly, this message wouldn't be sent
to you with CC to the list, which is the correct semantic.
If you weren't a subscriber, you would never see it. Secondly,
the first line above would read:

 On 16/04/2014 18:58, IETF discussion list wrote:

which is untrue.

On 17/04/2014 07:01, Jim Fenton wrote:
...
>>From the latest DMARC draft, section 8:
> 
> "If the RFC5322.From domain does not exist in the DNS, Mail Receivers
> SHOULD direct the receiving SMTP server to reject the message."
> 
> So if a receiver that is implementing DMARC is faithful to the draft,
> that won't work very well (nobody has gotten a TLD allocation for
> .invalid, I hope?)

DMARC isn't a standard, though, so standards-compliant mail receivers
shouldn't be implementing it. And that particular rule seems completely
out of place even if DMARC was a standard.

    Brian