On Sunday, July 20, 2014 12:37:25 Dave Crocker wrote:
Hi folks.
I submitted an Errata on RFC 5321 that was rejected due to logic that is
proving a bit challenging to understand.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=4055
So I thought I'd check with the SMTP, SPF and DKIM communities to get
some broader review for the substantive issue, before considering
alternative process paths.
Simply put:
RFC 5321 has some text about SPF and DKIM that is
simply wrong.
Given the continuing community confusion about what
SPF and DKIM do and do not do, I think that having
the SMTP document perpetuate erroneous views is
significantly problematic.
I've checked the archive of around the time the text was introduced.
Other that a brief exchange about the 'nature' of DKIM, I don't see any
messages on this topic.
I'd appreciate comments on the factual issues here. I don't want to
discuss the Errata process. Just the technical issues.
If folks think my characterization of the error is either correct or
incorrect, please say so and explain. If you think it can be documented
better, please offer text!
I think your characterization of SPF is almost correct. It generally concerns
itself with only the domain part of the message, but it can be used to check
authorization of the local part as well (via macros). If you add a caveat
before validate in "does not validate the entire address" such as (perhaps)
typically or usually, then I think it would be correct.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp