Dear Alexey Melnikov,
The session(s) that you have requested have been scheduled.
Below is the scheduled session information followed by
the original request.
dmarc Session 1 (1:00 requested)
Wednesday, 10 March 2021, Session II 1530-1630
Room Name: Room 2 size: 502
Yes, very true. Again as an individual, I think it's worth calling out
explicitly in the draft, simply because it does seem to cause friction with
implementations.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 1:23 PM John R Levine wrote:
> > In the data itself, there are summaries of IP addresses and
>
In the data itself, there are summaries of IP addresses and authentication
statuses of mail that fall into three categories: 1) mail that is
authenticated by the domain, 2) mail that fails to authenticate as the
domain, and 3) mail that is wholly unauthenticated. From a domain owner
perspective,
As an individual, part of the reason for this ticket is that some receivers
do not send aggregate reports, as they're unclear on whose data is being
provided to whom (which then spirals into issues of legalities). While the
IETF cannot weigh in on legalities, it can make clear the intention of
Apologies, this is for aggregate reports. I'm would imagine the Failure
reports draft would have its own section as the questions there may be
different.
--
Alex Brotman
Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy
Comcast
> -Original Message-
> From: John Levine
> Sent: Friday,
In article
you write:
>Hello folks,
>
>In ticket #64 (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/64), it was suggested
>that a Privacy Considerations section may alleviate
>some concerns about the ownership of the data. I created an initial attempt,
>and thought to get some feedback. I didn't
In article
you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>As an individual, +1000 to Scott.
I've closed this ticket. One down, a zillion to go.
R's,
John
___
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Hello folks,
In ticket #64 (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/64), it was suggested
that a Privacy Considerations section may alleviate some concerns about the
ownership of the data. I created an initial attempt, and thought to get some
feedback. I didn't think we should go too far in
As an individual, +1000 to Scott.
As Chair, this thread is unproductive, and two months passed due date to
resolve. Consensus seems clear that there isn't an issue here. If there's a
clear use case that hasn't been communicated, share it now or move on.
Seth
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 10:02 AM
I didn't miss it. I don't think it's meaningful.
In the real world, outside the IETF one of three things happens:
1. Everything works fine.
2. Someone depends on HELO evaluation of SPF and discovers from evaluating
the feedback reports that's it's a problem and then doesn't to that anymore.
10 matches
Mail list logo
