> On Aug 13, 2022, at 9:10 AM, John R Levine wrote:
>
> redac...@yyy.zzz
I think it’s good to be as clear and explicit as possible. The word redaction,
in general, explicitly states what you’re trying to accomplish. And the reader
might be able to more efficiently visually parse explicit
Not surprised, but it could guide what comes next.
For the current charter, is it in-scope or out-of-scope to discuss causes
of, and responses to false PASS and unwanted FAIL?
DF
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022, 5:15 PM Seth Blank wrote:
> John is correct, this work is out of scope of our charter. We
Done on Github copy.
I was surprised to see that the markdown version of the draft has
disappeared from the github repo.
Todd and I have found it much easier to edit the markdown version of
dmarcbis than hand twiddle the XML codes, and I have twiddled more than my
share of XML.
Regards,
John is correct, this work is out of scope of our charter. We will not be
revisiting our charter while dmarc-bis is in progress.
Seth, as Chair
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 2:07 PM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Out of scope? Scope is a choice, and is negotiable
Out of scope? Scope is a choice, and is negotiable with those who approve
charters.
We could define scope to be "technologies which help evaluators correctly
identify messages from wanted senders, while hindering malicious
impersonators".
If we define our desired end result, we are more likely
This proposal is completely out of scope for this WG.
On Thu, 18 Aug 2022, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Hi all,
I rewrote this I-D to add the simple method to de-munge From: header fields
upon reception, which was briefly discussed on list last week (Girl Scout
troops):
Hi all,
I rewrote this I-D to add the simple method to de-munge From: header fields
upon reception, which was briefly discussed on list last week (Girl Scout troops):
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vesely-dmarc-mlm-transform/
The changes required to the mailing list settings should be
On Thu 18/Aug/2022 17:53:35 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
Generally I think the less said about failure reporting in DMARCbis the
better.
+1, if we stick to having all tags defined in one document, we make it
difficult for future documents to add new tags. There is a registry.
Best
Ale
--
On Thu 18/Aug/2022 17:08:07 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
I have similar concerns. Thoughts on the changes in this revision:
I think adding the reference to Section 3.2 about external destination
verification is good.
RFC 9091 says, "PSD DMARC feedback MUST be limited to Aggregate Reports."
If RFC7591bis is attempted, I suggest that we need result types for
authenticated reception, such as
- SMTP Auth of Mailfrom address
- SMTP Auth of server using an address other than MailFrom
- SMTP whitelist of server IP
- Trusted server via VPN Tunnel
The particular concern relates to outbound
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 11:36:15 AM EDT Todd Herr wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 11:23 AM Scott Kitterman
>
> wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 10:57:16 AM EDT Todd Herr wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 9:57 AM Scott Kitterman
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > I agree. The one thing
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 11:23 AM Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 10:57:16 AM EDT Todd Herr wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 9:57 AM Scott Kitterman
> >
> > wrote:
> > > I agree. The one thing I think would be useful would be to move more
> of
> > > the
> > > text
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 10:57:16 AM EDT Todd Herr wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 9:57 AM Scott Kitterman
>
> wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 9:34:47 AM EDT John R Levine wrote:
> > > On Wed, 17 Aug 2022, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > > > I can't remember if this was discussed
On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 11:12:32 AM EDT John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Alessandro Vesely said:
> >> There is also an HTML version available at:
> >> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting-04.htm
> >> l
> >
> >This version requires some revision/ discussion
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 9:57 AM Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 9:34:47 AM EDT John R Levine wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Aug 2022, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > > I can't remember if this was discussed previously. I was just
> responding
> > > to the proposed change.
> >
> >
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 9:34:47 AM EDT John R Levine wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2022, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > I can't remember if this was discussed previously. I was just responding
> > to the proposed change.
>
> Understood, but I am concerned that we are spinning our wheels on
On Wed, 17 Aug 2022, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I can't remember if this was discussed previously. I was just responding
to the proposed change.
Understood, but I am concerned that we are spinning our wheels on changes
proposed by individuals that have no support from anyone else. It would
On Thu 18/Aug/2022 07:30:54 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 5:02 PM John Levine wrote:
It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy said:
Still no hat!
I was under the impression that we all agreed that we're not going to
change the failure reporting spec other than by
18 matches
Mail list logo
