The current algorithm effectively says that you can have subdomain
policies, or you can have relaxed alignment, but you cannot have both.
This does not meet my definition of upward-compatible.
However, if we are willing to deprecate major functionality in the pursuit
of freedom from the PSL,
Seems reasonable. Thanks for the warning on the required white space
engineering.
Scott K
On February 27, 2023 6:05:11 PM UTC, John Levine wrote:
>It appears that Tim Wicinski said:
>>-=-=-=-=-=-
>>
>>I agree that we should fix this tolerance in the bis document.
>
>I made a pull request.
It appears that Tim Wicinski said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>I agree that we should fix this tolerance in the bis document.
I made a pull request. The change is four characters but the pull request
looks complicated because I had to futz with whitespace to keep xml2rfc
from complaining that things are
It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy said:
>3) Since the goal is to wind down dependence on the PSL, I suggest that an
>implementation might choose to make the algorithm selectable, but I don't
>think the specification should.
If for some inexplicable reason you really want to keep using the PSL
On Mon 27/Feb/2023 16:17:33 +0100 Tim Wicinski wrote:
I agree that we should fix this tolerance in the bis document.
I agree we should fix the grammar, but the general syntax of dmarcbis allows
trailing spaces.
I tried and verified it using the IETF's extractor[*] and an ABNF to regex
I can not agree more than 100 percent on this. The PSL has issues. We need
to stop depending on it.
If anything, the PSD work has shown the W3C folks that there is a path
forward for folks who need to
do PSL-like things without boiling the ocean.
tim
(who has spent a bit too much time recently
I agree that we should fix this tolerance in the bis document.
tim
with no hat on
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 9:48 AM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 2:29 AM Tõnu Tammer
> wrote:
>
>> I am curious to know what the stance is on trailing whitespace within
>> DMARC records.
>>
On February 27, 2023 3:04:11 PM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy"
wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 4:29 AM Douglas Foster <
>dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The current text has an incentive problem. For an evaluator, the PSL
>> works fine. Unless an evaluator is Google-class,
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 4:29 AM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The current text has an incentive problem. For an evaluator, the PSL
> works fine. Unless an evaluator is Google-class, receiving mail from
> everywhere in the world, most of the PSL entries will
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 2:29 AM Tõnu Tammer
wrote:
> I am curious to know what the stance is on trailing whitespace within
> DMARC records.
>
> Strictly following the RFC 7489 and the formal specification in section
> 6.4, if there is no trailing dmarc-sep with the associated semicolon,
>
Barry, I think you have forgotten that organizational domain is needed for
relaxed alignment as well as disposition request. You cannot do relaxed
alignment correctly unless you find and use the correct organizational
domain.
The current text has an incentive problem. For an evaluator, the
Dear colleagues,
I am curious to know what the stance is on trailing whitespace within DMARC
records.
Strictly following the RFC 7489 and the formal specification in section 6.4, if
there is no trailing dmarc-sep with the associated semicolon, trailing
whitespace is not allowed.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 12:27 AM Barry Leiba
wrote:
> I think the failure of this thinking is the idea that there's any
> intent going on at cuny.edu, and we need to remind ourselves that it's
> a *hierarchy*, and that that word means something specific. In a
> hierarchy you expect to inherit
13 matches
Mail list logo
