What I am trying to avoid is a sender listing his email servers via a
MARID mechanism and that mail bouncing because of RFC2822
checking being
done by the sender does not match what the sender thinks it
is. This is
why I am arguing for RFC2822 checking to be a normative part
of the spec
if we agree on it.
I think it is reasonable to state what a conformant message looks
like. In fact I think that we both have a common interest here.
My view is that if we do not mention RFC822 checks at all then
what will happen is a whole rash of ad-hoc schemes will be tried
with varying effectiveness. We will end up with the uncertainty
that you are concerned about.
If we make it clear that any "suggestion" that the sender
makes requires
him to have his outgoing email conformant to that checking,
it can make
things better.
Absolutely, and that is an area where we can make a normative
requirement. The domain name holder MUST ensure that the outgoing
mail configuration is consistent with the settings described.
In fact I would goes as far as recommending that outgoing MTAs
check the configuration regularly and confirm that they are
in compliance.
In fact this is something that ISPs should be doing, if someone
is gating email claiming to come from papal through their mail
server they probably have a zombie phishing on their network
[comments about difficulty of getting IPSs to comply should be
forwarded to /dev/null, they are out of scope and irrelevant]
Otherwise, I
am afraid that people will arbitrary employ such checking where the
sender does not want it applied and as the result of that, the email
will not get through.
Absolutely.