On Jul 21, 2014, at 10:44 AM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf(_at_)elandsys(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Hi Dave,
At 06:59 21-07-2014, Dave Crocker wrote:
Really???
Yes.
The sentence is factually incorrect, about basic matters of SPF and
DKIM, and these matters are commonly misrepresented and understood.
In other words, the fact that an IETF standards track document is
mischaracterizing important bits of technology is problematic to a
meaningful level.
It is one sentence and it starts with "Recent work" and provides two
Informative references. There were significant issues with those bits of
technologies. RFC 5321 does not say anything about that.
,--
Recent work, such as that on SPF [29] and DKIM [30] [31] has been done to
provide ways to ascertain that an address is valid or belongs to the person who
actually sent the message.
'---
This statement needs to be read where 'address' only means email-address
(local-part@domain). In normal practice however, validation only assesses the
domain component. Local-part validation should be deprecated, especially where
privacy is concerned. We should be ultra-sensitive about making ownership
assertions.
,==
Recent work, such as that on SPF [29] and DKIM [30] [31] was done to provide
ways to ascertain whether an associated domain validate specific message
elements.
'==
Regards,
Douglas Otis
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp