Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Authentication-Results stamp for ARC

From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 19:10:44 +0800

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Another way to look at it: A-R is meant to be a channel to record what
> authentication was done and what thing in the visible message got
> authenticated

So, for SPF which does not authenticate *anything* in the original message,
how is A-R relevant at all (by that intention)?

--Kurt

---

From: Brandon Long <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 11:47:12 -0700

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 4:10 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) <[email-masked]> wrote:

> So, for SPF which does not authenticate *anything* in the original
> message, how is A-R relevant at all (by that intention)?
>

Yeah, I'm trying to see the real difference between the IP and the
smtp.helo ... and of course, there's also policy.iprev.

Brandon

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 22:26:46 -0700

> message, how is A-R relevant at all (by that intention)?

Consensus at the time was that the envelope was included in the definition
of "message".  Basically it's anything that's reasonably considered payload
in RFC5321 or RFC5322.  The IP address of the client is never part of SMTP
or its payload, unless you count non-standard or optional stuff in Received
fields.

-MSK