On Thursday, July 14, 2022 11:26:05 AM EDT Todd Herr wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 7:44 PM Scott Kitterman
>
> wrote:
> > On July 13, 2022 9:51:31 PM UTC, John R Levine wrote:
> > >On Wed, 13 Jul 2022, John Levine wrote:
> > >> It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy said:
> > >>> Speaking as a
On July 15, 2022 6:26:39 PM UTC, "John R. Levine" wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Jul 2022, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> +1 from me too. Note, though, that the (current) DNS is accidentally
>> correct most of the time, as far as our Tree Walk is concerned.
>
>No, it's not an accident. We designed the tree
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
+1 from me too. Note, though, that the (current) DNS is accidentally correct
most of the time, as far as our Tree Walk is concerned.
No, it's not an accident. We designed the tree walk based on our
knowledge of the way people publish DMARC record
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Organizational Domains are defined as PSD+1, and can have DMARC records
I think this would be a good time to review the way relaxed alignment
works in sections 4.5 through 4.8 of the draft.
Perhaps 0.01% of the time, a tree walk will find a recor
> On 15 Jul 2022, at 12:02, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>
>
> On Wed 13/Jul/2022 23:51:31 +0200 John Levine wrote:
>
>> I went through and looked at all of the "must" and "should", in both upper
>> and lower case.
>> A lot of the lower case "must" was saying that one thing is the same as
>> an
On Wed 13/Jul/2022 23:51:31 +0200 John Levine wrote:
I went through and looked at all of the "must" and "should", in both
upper and lower case.
A lot of the lower case "must" was saying that one thing is the same
as another using tortured syntax so I rewrote most of them to be
shorter an
On Thu 14/Jul/2022 17:12:19 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 6:13 AM Scott Kitterman wrote:
I think a choice within DMARCbis is a bad idea. Effectively the choice
exists. Evaluators will have the choice to stay with an RFC 7489 design or
to upgrade to DMARCbis.
The
