[dmarc-discuss] DMARC thwarted already?

Peter Blair popcorn at snickers.org
Thu Jun 5 21:29:59 PDT 2014


Oof, kinda -- I was thinking of 4xx for transient resolver issues or non
registered domain names, while writing the words "invalid RHS" which
_would_ require a 5xx to toss out the garbage.

Read what I'm thinking, not what I'm writing!


On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Peter Blair via dmarc-discuss <
> dmarc-discuss at dmarc.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> > I'd be curious about that "left off the domain" one; if an ISP were
>> already
>> > rejecting mail from domains that don't resolve, I doubt it would have
>> been
>> > delivered.
>>
>> +1 (again).
>>
>> It's a fairly prudent measure, rejecting mail with an invalid RHS with a
>> 4XX series post-DATA reply.
>>
>
> Do you mean 5xx?  A syntactically invalid RHS doesn't seem to be something
> that would be corrected by a retry later.
>
> -MSK
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://dmarc.org/pipermail/dmarc-discuss/attachments/20140606/f4d161a9/attachment.html>


More information about the dmarc-discuss mailing list