In article
you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Scott Kitterman
>wrote:
>
>> And if you don't want to make a new one, 5.7.26 (Multiple authentication
>> checks failed) seems at least not wrong. To get to this point DKIM,
>> DMARC,
>> and ARC have failed.
>
>Is this
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> And if you don't want to make a new one, 5.7.26 (Multiple authentication
> checks failed) seems at least not wrong. To get to this point DKIM,
> DMARC,
> and ARC have failed.
>
Is this better moved into Experimental Considerations?
We
On Friday, July 27, 2018 10:20:04 AM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 7:03 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
> > Ah. I still think it should go, but if you really want to do that, invent
> > a new enhanced status code. They're cheap. 5.7.7 isn't right, it's more
> > like corrupt
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 7:03 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>
> Ah. I still think it should go, but if you really want to do that, invent
> a new enhanced status code. They're cheap. 5.7.7 isn't right, it's more
> like corrupt S/MIME bodies.
>
>
I did a bunch of these (for DKIM and SPF at least)
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
This is not a matter of *whether* you reject during the SMTP interchange as
how to do it in a meaningful way *if* you do so. The discussion about
signaling that the domain authentication failure led to the rejection is
the point of this section.
I agree, this is out of place. Whether you reject at SMTP time is a much
broader topic than ARC failures.
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018, Seth Blank wrote:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-16#section-5.2.2
I am confused as to where this section comes from. It was never
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-16#section-5.2.2
I am confused as to where this section comes from. It was never discussed
on list, and I believe it should be stricken.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/?q=5.7.7 has no results
except for Dave Crocker's
