- Original Message -
From: Michael Jack Assels mjass...@encs.concordia.ca
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:06:12 PM
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] questions on the spec, was ... and two more tiny
nits, while I'm at it
What seems like ages ago, on Thu, 22 Jan 2015
On January 22, 2015 6:17:28 PM EST, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
DMARC leverages the Mail From identity, so I don't see how independent
HELO checks can be relevant.
If you look at sections 2.3 and 2.4 of RFC 7208, a reasonable
interpretation is that you check the HELO identity, and if you
DMARC leverages the Mail From identity, so I don't see how independent HELO
checks can be relevant.
If you look at sections 2.3 and 2.4 of RFC 7208, a reasonable
interpretation is that you check the HELO identity, and if you get a
definitive policy result, you're done and return that to the
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com
wrote:
On January 22, 2015 6:35:59 PM EST, Kurt Andersen kb...@drkurt.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com
wrote:
If I were configuring and SPF verifier to provide an input to
- Original Message -
From: ned+dm...@mrochek.com
To: John Levine jo...@taugh.com
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, skl...@kitterman.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 5:41:46 PM
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] questions on the spec, was ... and two more tiny
nits, while I'm at it
DMARC leverages
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 17:41:46 Ned Freed wrote:
DMARC leverages the Mail From identity, so I don't see how independent
HELO checks can be relevant.
If you look at sections 2.3 and 2.4 of RFC 7208, a reasonable
interpretation is that you check the HELO identity, and if you get a
On January 22, 2015 1:27:40 PM EST, Murray S. Kucherawy superu...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy
superu...@gmail.com
wrote:
I am asking the IESG and the ISE what the process is for making such
adjustments now.
Mainly my resistance to further change
On Friday, January 23, 2015 03:03:28 John Levine wrote:
RFC 7208 doesn't say the HELO result determines anything. It says IF (I say
again IF) a decision has been reached about message disposition based on
the HELO result, there is no requirement to go ahead and do a pointless
Mail From check.
- Original Message -
From: Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 7:16:58 PM
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] questions on the spec, was ... and two more tiny
nits, while I'm at it
On Friday, January 23, 2015 03:03:28 John Levine wrote:
On January 22, 2015 5:47:42 PM EST, Franck Martin fra...@peachymango.org
wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Michael Jack Assels mjass...@encs.concordia.ca
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:20:35 PM
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] questions on the spec, was ... and two
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com
wrote:
If I were configuring and SPF verifier to provide an input to DMARC
processing, then I would probably configure it not to reject based on SPF
fail. Then the problem doesn't arise.
This really is a non-issue.
Are
On January 22, 2015 7:13:46 PM EST, Terry Zink tz...@exchange.microsoft.com
wrote:
The way it works in Office 365 is this:
1. When checking SPF, use the domain in the 5321.MailFrom. If it is
empty, use the domain in the HELO/EHLO.
2. Use the domain extracted from (1) when doing the DMARC
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 23:52:58 Franck Martin wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 8:41:39 PM
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] questions on the spec, was ... and two more tiny
nits, while I'm
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:14 PM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
Do people concur with this change, or something close to it?
I'm OK with it, but to the meta-question, I realize the practical
issues involved with yanking something out of the production queue,
but in this case I wonder if
Do people concur with this change, or something close to it?
I'm OK with it, but to the meta-question, I realize the practical
issues involved with yanking something out of the production queue,
but in this case I wonder if that's not the right thing to do.
There's no great hurry in getting the
John Levine writes:
There's no great hurry in getting the DMARC document published, since
nothing currently depends on it, and if reasonable people are finding
holes in it that make it hard to write interoperable code, I'd rather
fix the holes than add lengthy errata or recycle later.
16 matches
Mail list logo
