[dmarc-discuss] multiple from

Roland Turner roland.turner at trustsphere.com
Tue Jul 16 20:46:02 PDT 2013


On 07/17/2013 12:15 AM, Douglas Otis wrote:

> >From a specification standpoint, it seems odd to invalidate email 
> from otherwise uninvolved domains that are technically RFC compliant. 
> Wouldn't such specifications make the DMARC specification RFC 
> ignorant? RFC5322 is a draft standard and RFC6854 is standards track. 
> Requiring rejection of otherwise valid messages is hostile to those 
> following standards.

This viewpoint is incorrect and reflects an error in understanding that 
senders frequently make.

An SMTP server (or the host that it runs on) is the property of a 
receiver. When a sender offers a message for delivery, the sender is 
asking the receiver to extend a delivery privilege, a privilege that the 
receiver is free to decline for any reason or for no reason. This 
commercial/organisational relationship is the context in which SMTP 
operates, not the other way around. The SMTP specification can never 
compel a receiver to accept a message. If the specification appears to 
have this effect (I don't believe that RFC 5321 has this effect, but 
perhaps I have missed an interpretation that you are relying upon), then 
one might realistically describe the specification as reality-ignorant.

Any time an RFC and reality diverge, it it the RFC that is 
reality-ignorant, not reality that is RFC-ignorant.

If it happens that the DMARC specification reflects reality better than 
existing RFCs - even standards track ones - then once again, it is those 
RFCs that are in error, not the DMARC specification.

- Roland

-- 
   Roland Turner | Director, Labs
   TrustSphere Pte Ltd | 3 Phillip Street #13-03, Singapore 048693
   Mobile: +65 96700022 | Skype: roland.turner
   roland.turner at trustsphere.com | http://www.trustsphere.com/



More information about the dmarc-discuss mailing list