On 6/28/04 4:40 PM, Harry Katz sent forth electrons to convey:
On Monday, June 28, 2004 1:50 PM, Matthew Elvey wrote:
On 6/28/04 11:09 AM, Harry Katz sent forth electrons to convey:
On Monday, June 28, 2004 9:36 AM, Greg Connor wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Matthew Elvey wrote:
[snip]
Yes. The paragraph you quote is preceeded by:
"If the above tests indicate that the connecting SMTP
client is not
authorized to transmit e-mail messages on behalf of the SUBMITTER
domain, the receiving SMTP server MAY reject the message
using "550
5.7.1 Submitter not allowed." The receiving SMTP server MAY
alternatively proceed to read the message and apply local policy."
If the spec is interpreted procedurally, the above could take
precedence over the below.
That threw me. The reverse precedence is desired. (Case
where SUBMITTER does not match header and is not allowed.)
Good point. If the last sentence of this paragraph is removed, would
that make things clearer? It's redundant with the paragraph I quoted
(repeated below).
Still isn't clear to me. You've still got a MAY in the first paragraph,
followed by a SHOULD in the second. One should have precedence (also I
don't see why one is MAY and the other SHOULD).
Got the s/firm/entity/ fix?
From section 4.2:
If the receiving SMTP server allows the connecting SMTP client to
transmit message data, then the server SHOULD determine
the purported
responsible address of the message by examining the RFC
2822 message
headers as described in [SENDER-ID]. If this purported
responsible
address does not match the address appearing in the SUBMITTER
parameter, the receiving SMTP server MUST reject the
message using
"550 5.7.1 Submitter does not match header."
If this needs some further clarification, please let me know.