Dave Crocker writes:
> On 3/19/2015 12:52 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > And since the From field is the only one users really see every time,
> > I'm not sure that declaring and supporting yet another
> > no-seriously-this-is-the-author field would be of benefit.
>
>
> I'd like to tr
J. Gomez writes:
> Why is it better for DMARC to be adapted to indirect email flows,
> instead of indirect email flows to be adapted to DMARC?
Because they *can't* be adapted by definition. DMARC "p=reject"
prohibits indirect mail, and "p=quarantine" sends it to the spam
bucket.
Or perhaps yo
On 3/19/2015 12:52 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> And since the From field is the only one users really see every time,
> I'm not sure that declaring and supporting yet another
> no-seriously-this-is-the-author field would be of benefit.
I'd like to try to get us to phrase this differently.
I
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:56 PM, J. Gomez wrote:
> Why is it better for DMARC to be adapted to indirect email flows, instead
> of indirect email flows to be adapted to DMARC?
>
> What does provide more value to end users at large: indirect email flows
> to be kept old-style, or the extra notch of
On Friday, March 20, 2015 09:56:15 PM J. Gomez wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 11:40 PM [GMT+1=CET], Douglas Otis wrote:
> > Dear DMARC WG,
> >
> > Now that RFC7489 has been published, there remains several
> > unresolved problems this WG is charted to resolve, primarily--
> > 1. Addressing
On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 11:40 PM [GMT+1=CET], Douglas Otis wrote:
> Dear DMARC WG,
>
> Now that RFC7489 has been published, there remains several
> unresolved problems this WG is charted to resolve, primarily--
> 1. Addressing the issues with indirect mail flows
Why is it better for DMARC t
Not yet. I don't think there are any implementations. We were just banging
the idea around. I'm looking at doing one soon for OpenDKIM as an
experimental add-on.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:25 AM, John Bucy wrote:
> Hadn't seen that ID, cool! Is there any test data available?
>
>
>
> cheers
> j
Hadn't seen that ID, cool! Is there any test data available?
cheers
john
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> There was one proposed:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-dkim-list-canon-00
>
> This working group will be discussing this and other options be
