On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 5:57 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
> (with no hats)
>
> p=none with no reporting is fine, and we should keep it.
>
> One thing the WG could do is a BCP document on operational recommendations
> where there are certain suggestions like this.
>
> tim
>
> +1
>
Michael Hammer
On May 21, 2020 10:50:37 PM UTC, "John R. Levine" wrote:
>> Making p= an optional tag, even with the default of p=none, I believe
>would
>> further erode receiver confidence in DMARC policy statements, simply
>> because publishing a record with no p= tag provides no evidence that
>the
>>
Making p= an optional tag, even with the default of p=none, I believe would
further erode receiver confidence in DMARC policy statements, simply
because publishing a record with no p= tag provides no evidence that the
domain owner has given any thought whatsoever to their policy statement.
I
On 05/21/2020 14:11, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Also, I don't see a problem with making the p= tag optional (with an inferred
value of None if not present). This is consistent with an existing SHOULD in
RFC 7489 and appears to be broadly supported in existing implementations.
Wow, did I
I disagree with the idea of making p= optional.
My perception is that DMARC has been advertised to the ecosystem as a way
for domain/brand owners to request specific treatment for mail that claims
to be sent on behalf of a domain but that fails authentication checks. It's
couched as a request for
(with no hats)
p=none with no reporting is fine, and we should keep it.
One thing the WG could do is a BCP document on operational recommendations
where there are certain suggestions like this.
tim
On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 5:37 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Fri 15/May/2020 20:26:24 +0200
Agreed. I don't think this is controversial.
Also, I don't see a problem with making the p= tag optional (with an inferred
value of None if not present). This is consistent with an existing SHOULD in
RFC 7489 and appears to be broadly supported in existing implementations.
I'd propose we
(With no hats)
I agree with John the v=DMARC1; is magic and MUST be first. Everything
else can show up wherever.
tim
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 9:09 PM John Levine wrote:
> In article s9cqa7...@mail.gmail.com>,
> Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> >It's been a while since the original discussion,
On Wed 20/May/2020 22:00:34 +0200 Hector Santos wrote:
> On 5/20/2020 2:43 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>
>> I mean, what is the CSV format of the following report, that I sent yesterday
>> for this list:
>
> Sorry, if I ignored it.
>
> Forgetting fact that you can your report easier to read
