+1
No hats
From my high tech gadget
> On Aug 2, 2019, at 02:23, Stan Kalisch wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, at 11:14 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> Catching up on my mail after a laptop disaster, ...
>>
>> In article <4600949.rz9u5RyGOV@l5580> you write:
>> >I think comments should be
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, at 11:14 PM, John Levine wrote:
> Catching up on my mail after a laptop disaster, ...
>
> In article <4600949.rz9u5RyGOV@l5580> you write:
> >I think comments should be free-form. If we want data that can be machine
> >parsed, we should specify it.
> >
> >I think the above
Catching up on my mail after a laptop disaster, ...
In article <4600949.rz9u5RyGOV@l5580> you write:
>I think comments should be free-form. If we want data that can be machine
>parsed, we should specify it.
>
>I think the above works in ABNF terms. It's:
>
>Authentication-Results:"
On Wed 31/Jul/2019 12:46:00 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Would it be possible to add a result of "quarantine"? Having dmarc=fail
>> and dns.policy=quarantine leaves a good deal of interpretation to the MDA.
>> If one could write dmarc=quarantine, a simple string search or regular
>>
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 12:38 PM Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> I'd like to add the option to record DMARC results in an A-R header field
> for
> consumption by a downstream processor. I think it would be something like
> this:
>
> Authentication-Results: mail-router.example.net; dmarc=pass
>
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019, at 6:46 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On July 31, 2019 7:11:49 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> >On Tue 30/Jul/2019 15:56:16 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >
> >> The published policy (that's why I suggest dmarc.policy).
> >
> >
> >Published policy can be ambiguous. Say you
On Tue 30/Jul/2019 15:56:16 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> The published policy (that's why I suggest dmarc.policy).
Published policy can be ambiguous. Say you have p=quarantine; sp=none. The
MTA chooses which to apply based on the domains (publishing and From:). So it
makes sense to write
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, at 9:57 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> The published policy (that's why I suggest dmarc.policy). I'm not sure if
> disposition belongs in A-R. If it does, it'd be a local policy override,
> probably policy.dmarc as described now in RFC 8616.
In that case, if the downstream
The published policy (that's why I suggest dmarc.policy). I'm not sure if
disposition belongs in A-R. If it does, it'd be a local policy override,
probably policy.dmarc as described now in RFC 8616.
Scott K
On July 30, 2019 1:34:46 PM UTC, "Дилян Палаузов"
wrote:
>Hello Scott,
>
>do you
Hello Scott,
do you want to include in the A-R header the published policy, as obtained from
DNS (my first interpretation of your
proposal), or the disposition of the message after applying DKIM/SPF/DMARC
validation, pct sampling, and the ominous
reject→quarantine sampling conversions?
With
On Monday, July 29, 2019 3:37:55 PM EDT Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I'd like to add the option to record DMARC results in an A-R header field
> for consumption by a downstream processor. I think it would be something
> like this:
>
> Authentication-Results: mail-router.example.net; dmarc=pass
>
On Monday, July 29, 2019 3:50:34 PM EDT Дилян Палаузов wrote:
> Hello Scott,
>
> You want to add the option to record the DMARC policy in the A-R header. I
> add it as comment:
>
> Authentication-Results: mail.example.org/x551xr2q019874; dmarc=pass
> (p=quarantine dis=none)
Hello Scott,
You want to add the option to record the DMARC policy in the A-R header. I add
it as comment:
Authentication-Results: mail.example.org/x551xr2q019874; dmarc=pass
(p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=example.com; spf=pass
smtp.mailfrom=u...@example.com
with dis being the
13 matches
Mail list logo
