[dmarc-discuss] multiple from
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 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