[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-smtp] Error in RFC 5321 concerning SPF and DKIM

2014-07-20 21:42:28

Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question.

On Jul 20, 2014, at 16:36, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:

On 7/20/2014 5:50 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
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.

While they do do that, the sentence seems to me a non-sequitor and in
particular has nothing to do with the return address, per se.

So my question is how it helps the SMTP specification reader to have a
sentence like that and to have it there?

I had the feeling that by removing the last sentence you were making too much 
of a change therefore the rejection of the errata

Correcting the incorrect sentence may be acceptable for an errata

How is it helpful? By pointing people in a direction for further reading
ietf-smtp mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>