On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 3:40 AM Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> >Google uses 5.7.26 for the purpose (and for SPF and DKIM rejects):
> >
> >https://support.google.com/a/answer/3726730?sjid=16541570162287939258-NA
> >
> >Their use of 5.7.26 seems in keeping with IANA - Multiple authentication
> >checks
On July 12, 2023 1:11:37 PM UTC, Todd Herr
wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 7:30 AM Scott Kitterman
>wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 7:04:38 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> > On Wed 12/Jul/2023 12:54:38 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 3:29:34 AM EDT
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 7:30 AM Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 7:04:38 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> > On Wed 12/Jul/2023 12:54:38 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 3:29:34 AM EDT Baptiste Carvello wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > >> Why? Because
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 7:04:38 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Wed 12/Jul/2023 12:54:38 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 3:29:34 AM EDT Baptiste Carvello wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >> Why? Because it's brittle and will only bring them more headaches? At
> >> the
On Wed 12/Jul/2023 12:54:38 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 3:29:34 AM EDT Baptiste Carvello wrote:
...
Why? Because it's brittle and will only bring them more headaches? At
the very least, DMARC would need to use its own 5xy reply code to avoid
the need for parsing the
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 3:29:34 AM EDT Baptiste Carvello wrote:
...
> Why? Because it's brittle and will only bring them more headaches? At
> the very least, DMARC would need to use its own 5xy reply code to avoid
> the need for parsing the reply text…
...
This is a very good point. The IANA
