On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 5:02 AM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The second principle in my discussion about NP is that an unregistered
> organization is by definition an unacceptable impersonation. When
> organization existence has not been demonstrated by discovery
On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 4:34 AM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> What is the plan for initial PSD=Y?
>
Do you have specific text to propose?
-MSK
___
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/
On August 5, 2022 9:15:32 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>On Thu 04/Aug/2022 22:50:20 +0200 John R. Levine wrote:
>>> I think that Ale's expression that he had difficulty understanding the
>>> description of the tree walk as written is a strong sign we still need to
>>> improve the language.
It appears that Alessandro Vesely said:
>On Wed 03/Aug/2022 21:52:21 +0200 John Levine wrote:
>> He insists that the failure reports mean something is wrong, the list needs
>> to make them go away, which of course means rewriting headers to make it
>> harder
>> to tell who each message was from.
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 4:50:20 PM EDT John R. Levine wrote:
> > I think that Ale's expression that he had difficulty understanding the
> > description of the tree walk as written is a strong sign we still need
> > to improve the language. Of the people involved in this specific
> > discussion
On Fri, 5 Aug 2022, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Fri 05/Aug/2022 04:44:21 +0200 John Levine wrote:
DMARC uses available information to produce a result of "Authenticated" or
"Not Authenticated". Sometimes, the message can be reliably categorized
as "Authenticated" or "Not Authenticated" w
On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 10:15 PM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Consider two names:
> u...@promotions.fake.bank, where "fake.bank" is non-existent.
> "promotions.fake.bank" is therefore also non-existent.
> and
> u...@promotion.real.bank, where "real.bank" exists, b
> DMARC is all about authentication - it says that a message has, or has not,
> been judged to be free of impersonation risk.
I absolutely disagree with your premise, and I think the others have
been saying that as well.
DMARC has *nothing* to do with performing authentication; it's about
publis
The second principle in my discussion about NP is that an unregistered
organization is by definition an unacceptable impersonation. When
organization existence has not been demonstrated by discovery of a DMARC
policy (or SPF policy or DKIM key), then it should be explicitly tested for
existence a
First of all, this is not Best-Guess SPF, because it is not a guess.
DMARC is all about authentication - it says that a message has, or has not,
been judged to be free of impersonation risk. What it does not say is
whether a message is wanted, because "wanted" involves much more than
authenticat
On Fri 05/Aug/2022 04:44:21 +0200 John Levine wrote:
DMARC uses available information to produce a result of "Authenticated" or
"Not Authenticated". Sometimes, the message can be reliably categorized
as "Authenticated" or "Not Authenticated" without reference to the
specifics of a domain owner
On Wed 03/Aug/2022 21:52:21 +0200 John Levine wrote:
He insists that the failure reports mean something is wrong, the list needs
to make them go away, which of course means rewriting headers to make it harder
to tell who each message was from. I suggested that if he doesn't want the
reports he's
On Thu 04/Aug/2022 22:50:20 +0200 John R. Levine wrote:
I think that Ale's expression that he had difficulty understanding the
description of the tree walk as written is a strong sign we still need to
improve the language. Of the people involved in this specific
discussion, as far as I know, h
13 matches
Mail list logo
