[dmarc-discuss] multiple from

Franck Martin fmartin at linkedin.com
Tue Jul 16 20:58:26 PDT 2013


On Jul 16, 2013, at 8:46 PM, Roland Turner <roland.turner at trustsphere.com>
 wrote:

> 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.
> 

I like to put it that way when people rely too much in theories (or specifications): The map is right, it is the road which is at the wrong place.




More information about the dmarc-discuss mailing list