On 11/7/20 8:20 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 11/7/2020 8:12 PM, Steven M Jones wrote:
that's why the policy option of "p=none" exists. Perhaps the use of
the string "none," meaning "no change in handling," is too readily
confused with "none" meaning "no policy?" Which is indeed an odd
duck, a po
On 11/7/20 5:00 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 11/7/2020 4:50 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
If that last sentence is the consensus of the working group (and I
see that the charter could be interpreted that policy is required),
then fine. But I consider the reporting aspect to be useful even in
the absenc
On 11/7/2020 8:12 PM, Steven M Jones wrote:
that's why the policy option of "p=none" exists. Perhaps the use of the
string "none," meaning "no change in handling," is too readily confused
with "none" meaning "no policy?" Which is indeed an odd duck, a policy
saying there is no policy...
Alth
On 11/7/20 4:50 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
On 5 Nov 2020, at 9:45, Seth Blank wrote:
[...]
To Todd's point, DMARC is a means of communicating policy between domain
owner and mail receiver regarding how to handle unauthenticated mail.
DMARC
does not function without policy.
[...] But I consider t
On 11/7/2020 4:50 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
If that last sentence is the consensus of the working group (and I see
that the charter could be interpreted that policy is required), then
fine. But I consider the reporting aspect to be useful even in the
absence of policy assertion or enforcement, allo
On 5 Nov 2020, at 9:45, Seth Blank wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 9:31 AM Alessandro Vesely
wrote:
That's the old spec. The consensus of the working group is to remove
the
normative constraint about p= (ticket #49). So now only v= is
required.
As Chair, this is not the consensus of the
I wanted to bring this topic into a visibly different thread, as it's
really about further splitting up of the base DMARC document.
In digging through recent messages, I think I see what Ale meant. The
topic was Jim Fenton's suggestion of splitting the policy section out
into a separate docum
On 11/7/20 5:09 AM, Douglas E. Foster wrote:
The report receiver verification step was referenced in the response.
This was the pointer:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7489#section-7.1.
It requires a DNS entry at: .
_report._dmarc., type TXT, value "v=DMARC1" (No other
content is specifie
Exactly. I was speculating. What reasons could possibly exist for a domain to
be given another method for not saying anythng? You make my point - there are
no valid reasons to do so.Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Original message
From: Dotzero Date: 11/7/20
..
>
> p=none probably means "I am trying to get my administrative controls in
> place, but I am not there yet", which still supports my earlier comment
> that "I don't know how to advise you on whether to accept or reject this
> message".
>
p=none simply means "This domain is not asserting polic
The report receiver verification step was referenced in the response. This
was the pointer:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7489#section-7.1.
It requires a DNS entry at: . _report._dmarc., type
TXT, value "v=DMARC1" (No other content is specified.)
Since the DNS location, the purpose of the
On 11/7/20 1:11 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Fri 06/Nov/2020 14:57:46 +0100 Todd Herr wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 7:27 AM Douglas E. Foster wrote:
It makes no sense to allow "p=" missing. Why would we suggest that
all
existing implementations alter their code to tolerate additional
unn
On Fri 06/Nov/2020 14:57:46 +0100 Todd Herr wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 7:27 AM Douglas E. Foster wrote:
It makes no sense to allow "p=" missing. Why would we suggest that all
existing implementations alter their code to tolerate additional
unnecessary complexity, rather than requiring doma
13 matches
Mail list logo
