[dmarc-discuss] is that *really* valid

Vladimir Dubrovin dubrovin at corp.mail.ru
Wed Apr 6 09:43:44 PDT 2016


Of cause

From: Lastname, Firstname <user at yahoo.com>

is a result of omitted backslash or double quotes. The fact is,
according to RFC 5322 it's valid RFC5322.From field with 2 mailboxes in
it and is not covered by RFC 7489. OpenDMARC implementation follows to
known best practices noticed in RFC 7489 to reject the message.

Franck Martin пишет:
> Vladimir,
>
> We are not discussing here the fact you can put 2 mailboxes in a From:
> but that the display part must be between double quotes.
>
> A mailbox is an optional display part within double quotes followed by
> an email address within <>. Mailboxes are separated by comas ,.
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Vladimir Dubrovin via dmarc-discuss
> <dmarc-discuss at dmarc.org <mailto:dmarc-discuss at dmarc.org>> wrote:
>
>
>     This From contains 2 mailboxes (Lastname and user at yahoo.com
>     <mailto:user at yahoo.com>). This is valid RFC 5322 syntax
>
>        from            =   "From:" mailbox-list CRLF
>     ...
>      mailbox-list    =   (mailbox *("," mailbox)) / obs-mbox-list 
>
>     but it's invalid for DMARC RFC 7489 and it's not covered by DMARC
>     specification:
>
>        The absence of a single, properly formed RFC5322 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322>.From field renders
>        the message invalid.  Handling of such a message is outside of the
>        scope of this specification.
>
>     Processing of message like this is implementation specific, any
>     implementation does not violate RFC 7489.
>
>     A. Schulze via dmarc-discuss пишет:
>>
>>     Hello,
>>
>>     I noticed a message with this RFC5322.From:
>>
>>       From: Lastname, Firstname <user at yahoo.com> <mailto:user at yahoo.com>
>>
>>     the message was authenticated by SPF and DKIM but opendmarc
>>     rejected finally.
>>     Is this From really valid? I would quote the displayname.
>>
>>     If it's valid, I hit a bug in OpenDMARC.
>>     If it's invalid, maybe Elizabeth will be interested ...
>>
>>     Andreas
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     dmarc-discuss mailing list
>>     dmarc-discuss at dmarc.org <mailto:dmarc-discuss at dmarc.org>
>>     http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
>>
>>     NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC
>>     Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
>
>
>     -- 
>     Vladimir Dubrovin
>     @Mail.Ru
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     dmarc-discuss mailing list
>     dmarc-discuss at dmarc.org <mailto:dmarc-discuss at dmarc.org>
>     http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
>
>     NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note
>     Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
>
>


-- 
Vladimir Dubrovin
@Mail.Ru
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://dmarc.org/pipermail/dmarc-discuss/attachments/20160406/bf7525db/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1032 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://dmarc.org/pipermail/dmarc-discuss/attachments/20160406/bf7525db/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: adgegfeh.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1032 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://dmarc.org/pipermail/dmarc-discuss/attachments/20160406/bf7525db/attachment-0003.png>


More information about the dmarc-discuss mailing list