On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 5:55 PM Brandon Long wrote:
> Shouldn't be separate as defined:
> The Sender header proposal is also an adjunct directly to DMARC itself,
> changing the existing dmarc policy evaluation in a direct way. I don't
> think that should be done by a separate spec, if we do
Although I'm not fully convinced by Dave's point on whether indicators are
useless (they certainly are not of large value, I'm less certain in the
margins).. I think I need to work through what DMARC is without that.
DMARC is composed of three things: alignment, policy and reporting. I
think the
On 9/29/2020 3:41 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
Do you have an algorithm that replaces the current one?
I've no idea what any of your note has to do with the DKIM protocol
specification.
By way of a small example, DKIM does not have o=.
But really, nothing in your note concerns the published
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:50 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 9/29/2020 3:08 PM, Seth Blank wrote:
> > I don't know of any receiver that checks DMARC, but then doesn't check
> > alignment
>
> It's not a matter of field statistics:
>
> Since checking alignment is an obvious part of the DMARC
>
On 9/29/2020 3:41 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
Do you have an algorithm that replaces the current one?
I've no idea what any of your note has to do with the DKIM protocol
specification.
By way of a small example, DKIM does not have o=.
But really, nothing in your note concerns the published
On 9/29/2020 3:08 PM, Seth Blank wrote:
I don't know of any receiver that checks DMARC, but then doesn't check
alignment
It's not a matter of field statistics:
Since checking alignment is an obvious part of the DMARC
procedure, if someone does not follow the specification, they are not
On 9/29/2020 1:26 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 9/29/2020 6:40 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
On 9/27/2020 11:44 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
DKIM has a single signature binding requirement, the 5322.From
DMARC establishes the relationship.
I don't read it that way.
DKIM binds the signer d= domain and the
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 2:55 PM Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:15 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>
>>
>> +1. The rationale, AIUI, is that if the receiver successfully evaluated
>> alignment, then "pass" is fine. If the receiver didn't evaluate anything
>> after
>> it saw
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:15 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>
> +1. The rationale, AIUI, is that if the receiver successfully evaluated
> alignment, then "pass" is fine. If the receiver didn't evaluate anything
> after
> it saw p=none, then "none" is fine. and should agree.
>
If a receiver
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 8:47 PM Seth Blank wrote:
> At a minimum, per Dave's comments here:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/XXE3r5FUozl6LVohv8rTkn5QG4E/
> I still believe there's some clear consistent language that needs to be
> agreed upon to drive the appropriate specificity in
On 9/29/2020 10:56 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Sigh, yes. It has caused this misunderstanding, from the start.
It was imposed on the working group by an IETF Area Director and was
agreed to as an expedient.
But, sigh, no. It does not carry any of the semantic import being
claimed in the current
On 9/29/2020 10:46 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Tue 29/Sep/2020 19:26:21 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote:
On 9/29/2020 6:40 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
On 9/27/2020 11:44 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
DKIM has a single signature binding requirement, the 5322.From
DMARC establishes the relationship.
I
On Tue 29/Sep/2020 19:26:21 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote:
On 9/29/2020 6:40 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
On 9/27/2020 11:44 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
DKIM has a single signature binding requirement, the 5322.From
DMARC establishes the relationship.
I don't read it that way.
DKIM binds the signer d=
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 1:26 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 9/29/2020 6:40 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
> > On 9/27/2020 11:44 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > DKIM has a single signature binding requirement, the 5322.From
> >> DMARC establishes the relationship.
> > I don't read it that way.
> >
> > DKIM
On 9/29/2020 6:40 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
On 9/27/2020 11:44 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
DKIM has a single signature binding requirement, the 5322.From
DMARC establishes the relationship.
I don't read it that way.
DKIM binds the signer d= domain and the from.domain with no
enforcement on it nor
On Sun 13/Sep/2020 03:43:07 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> While I'm thinking of it:
>
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 6:11 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 3:51 PM Douglas E. Foster wrote:
>>
>>> The Alternative
>>>
>>> All of these problems can be avoided if the subscriber
On 9/27/2020 11:44 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 9/27/2020 11:22 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
This seems to me to be an odd view because no RFC is needed to use From and
it's relationship to either DKIM signing domain or SPF validated Mail From.
The DKIM d= value establishes no relationship with
On Tue 29/Sep/2020 05:45:40 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote:
On 9/28/2020 8:42 PM, Seth Blank wrote:
Are there any objections to recording consensus that [1], that the domain and
selector of the key used to evaluate the DMARC status MUST be included, and
[2] opening a ticket to discuss how
On Tue 29/Sep/2020 05:40:13 +0200 Seth Blank wrote:
I'm hearing consensus that an aggregate report should retain a disposition
of "none" when the dmarc policy is "none", but when the policy is
quarantine or reject, "pass" should be used to disambiguate the use cases.
Further, there's been one
19 matches
Mail list logo
