Yes Dave is correct in saying this is erroneous, therefore an errata.
If you want to keep the SPF and DKIM reference, you could state:
This specification does not deal with the verification of return paths for use
in delivery notifications. Recent work, such as that on SPF [29] and DKIM [30]
[31], has been done to provide ways to improve traceability of the message.
Printed on recycled paper!
On Jul 20, 2014, at 9:39, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> 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've BCC'd the SPF and DKIM lists, to make sure that everyone there
sees this. But please post any followups to the SMTP list.)
Thanks!
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp