From a technical perspective you are correct.
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
I submitted an Errata on RFC 5321 that was rejected due to logic that is
proving a bit challenging to understand.
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.
RFC 5321 has some text about SPF and DKIM that is
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
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.)
spfbis mailing list
ietf-smtp mailing list