org/errata/eid7835
--
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Reported by: Giuseppe Trotta
Date Reported: 2024-03-04
Held by: Eliot Lear (ISE & Editorial Board)
Section: 6.6.3
Original Text
-
2. Records that do not start w
On 30.04.23 13:49, Hector Santos wrote:
What is the count based on? Is the count the amount of mail created
since the last date of this report which was 1 week ago?
Did Scott create 25 messages and myself 14 messages in one week? I
don't think so.
I do.
Here's what I learned after a few
It appears that Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)
said:
-=-=-=-=-=-
Dear Authors and DMARC group,
In my continuing review of errata posted against RFC 7489, my view is
that the following erratum should be verified, and I intend to do so in
the next month unless given good cause
Dear Authors and DMARC group,
In my continuing review of errata posted against RFC 7489, my view is
that the following erratum should be rejected, and I intend to do so in
the next month unless given good cause not to do so. My reading is that
the reporter has quoted from the wrong section
Dear Authors and DMARC group,
In my continuing review of errata posted against RFC 7489, my view is
that the following erratum should be verified, and I intend to do so in
the next month unless given good cause not to do so. My logic is that
running code in the wild should trump whatever is
Dear Authors and DMARC group,
In my continuing review of errata posted against RFC 7489, my view is
that the following erratum should be verified, and I intend to do so in
the next month unless given good cause not to do so. This is a
clarification as to which gzip spec should be used.
Dear Authors and DMARC group,
In my continuing review of errata posted against RFC 7489, my view is
that the following erratum should be verified, and I intend to do so in
the next month unless given good cause not to do so. The example simply
doesn't follow the ABNF, and the correction
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6729
Dear Murray and DMARC group,
Please comment on the following reported erratum by Scott Kitterman
against RFC 7489, an independent submission. I did not participate in
the development of this RFC, and could see arguments on either side of
this issue.
Hi everyone,
In doing a review of this current version, I note a small number of
issues that can be resolved fairly quickly, I think.
In Section 1:
>Email messages that do not conform to other email specifications but
>are considered legitimate by the intended recipients are not
>
eom
Eliot
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Murray,
You've clearly put a lot of work into updating this document, and there
are a substantial number of changes. That means it deserves this
group's serious attention. You've given me my homework assignment, I
can say...
Eliot
On 10/29/14, 9:37 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Tue, Oct
Hi Tim,
One suggestion...
On 8/18/14, 5:31 PM, Tim Draegen wrote:
- EOY 2014: Deliverable #1 (above document + possible methods to address).
That seems quite short a period between adoption and approval, and I
question whether you will get sufficient review at a time when in
America there
12 matches
Mail list logo
