On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 2:33 AM Jeroen Massar wrote:
> `req=dkim`: requires DKIM, messages not properly signed are then to be
> rejected/quarantined based on 'p' policy.
>
This sounds like what RFC 5617 tried to do, minus the constraint that the
signing domain be equal to the author domain, which
On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 3:26 PM Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
>
> > On 6 Feb 2024, at 20:52, John Levine wrote:
> >
> > It appears that Jeroen Massar said:
> >> Hi Folks,
> >>
> >> As DMARCbis is being updated, I would like to suggest a new tag
> `required` shorted to `req`.
> >>
> >> ```
> >> `req=dk
> On 6 Feb 2024, at 20:52, John Levine wrote:
>
> It appears that Jeroen Massar said:
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> As DMARCbis is being updated, I would like to suggest a new tag `required`
>> shorted to `req`.
>>
>> ```
>> `req=dkim`: requires DKIM, messages not properly signed are then to be
>>
It appears that Jeroen Massar said:
>Hi Folks,
>
>As DMARCbis is being updated, I would like to suggest a new tag `required`
>shorted to `req`.
>
>```
>`req=dkim`: requires DKIM, messages not properly signed are then to be
>rejected/quarantined based on 'p' policy.
>
>The tag should allow futur
Hi Folks,
As DMARCbis is being updated, I would like to suggest a new tag `required`
shorted to `req`.
```
`req=dkim`: requires DKIM, messages not properly signed are then to be
rejected/quarantined based on 'p' policy.
The tag should allow future expansion by requiring multiple mechanisms to
