On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 2:50 PM John Levine wrote:
> In article <1e61f7c4-c6d2-5dab-dfc7-f1fd740e1...@tana.it> you write:
> >Now my tiny MX stores 115,225 domains total. And I have no idea how I
> could
> >add a trust-ARC-seals boolean field to each domain record.
>
> You wouldn't. Only a
In article <754690b7-6624-4cc6-66e1-62438b32c...@tana.it> you write:
>On Sat 19/Dec/2020 01:03:58 +0100 Seth Blank wrote:
>>
>> A privacy consideration should say such a thing, specifically clarify what
>> may be in a report that could be categorized as PII even after intended
>> redaction, but
In article <1e61f7c4-c6d2-5dab-dfc7-f1fd740e1...@tana.it> you write:
>Now my tiny MX stores 115,225 domains total. And I have no idea how I could
>add a trust-ARC-seals boolean field to each domain record.
You wouldn't. Only a small fraction of those domains send enough forwarded
mail to be
On Sat 19/Dec/2020 01:03:58 +0100 Seth Blank wrote:
>
> A privacy consideration should say such a thing, specifically clarify what
> may be in a report that could be categorized as PII even after intended
> redaction, but refrain from legal advice.
As John pointed out, an IP address can be
On Fri 18/Dec/2020 22:54:54 +0100 Michael Thomas wrote:
In my opinion, ARC has promise, because if a message reaches me as a receiver
or even intermediary and fails the authentication checks I perform, ARC
header sets in the message can tell me whether or not such checks passed at
previous
