On Mon 01/Nov/2021 23:25:30 +0100 Scott Kitterman wrote:
Could you perhaps do an assessment of the percentages of email you see where
5322.From == Org domain
5322.From is a sub-domain of Org domain
5321.MailFrom == 5322.From
5321.MailFrom is a sub-domain of 5322.From
5322.From is a sub-domain
On Mon 01/Nov/2021 21:35:07 +0100 John R Levine wrote:
On Mon, 1 Nov 2021, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Sun 31/Oct/2021 16:01:03 +0100 John Levine wrote:
It appears that Alessandro Vesely said:
Another criterion, beside tree-walk and PSL, could be to look at the
d= tag of the DKIM signatures
ott Kitterman
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. November 2021 00:04
> An: dmarc@ietf.org
> Betreff: Re: [dmarc-ietf] same old org domain, Topic for IETF 112 - Policy
> Discovery
>
>
> On November 1, 2021 10:51:13 PM UTC, Dotzero wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 6:08 P
bound" is not dead,
only concluded...
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: dmarc Im Auftrag von Scott Kitterman
Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. November 2021 00:04
An: dmarc@ietf.org
Betreff: Re: [dmarc-ietf] same old org domain, Topic for IETF 112 - Policy
Discovery
On November 1, 2021 10:51
On November 1, 2021 10:51:13 PM UTC, Dotzero wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 6:08 PM Tobias Herkula
>wrote:
>
>> Yes this is used in a significant way, dropping the mechanic of the
>> org-domain would make a lot of things in processing inbound mail streams a
>> lot more complicated.
>>
>> The
On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 6:08 PM Tobias Herkula
wrote:
> Yes this is used in a significant way, dropping the mechanic of the
> org-domain would make a lot of things in processing inbound mail streams a
> lot more complicated.
>
> The PSL does not exists for DKIM or DMARC, it is a product of the
rite another RFC in a couple of years", isn't that totally fine, for
>a standard to evolve and update it if it needs an update?
>
>-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: dmarc Im Auftrag von Scott Kitterman
>Gesendet: Montag, 1. November 2021 21:24
>An: dmarc@ietf.org
>Bet
2021 21:24
An: dmarc@ietf.org
Betreff: Re: [dmarc-ietf] same old org domain, Topic for IETF 112 - Policy
Discovery
On Monday, November 1, 2021 3:17:05 PM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> From: u...@sub.example.org, signed by example.org which also publishes
> a policy has to be valid.
Why?
On Mon, 1 Nov 2021, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Sun 31/Oct/2021 16:01:03 +0100 John Levine wrote:
It appears that Alessandro Vesely said:
>> Another criterion, beside tree-walk and PSL, could be to look at the d= tag
of
the DKIM signatures that are aligned with the From: domain. Would
On Monday, November 1, 2021 3:17:05 PM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> From: u...@sub.example.org, signed by example.org which also publishes a
> policy has to be valid.
Why? Do you know of this construct being used in any significant way?
Scott K
On Sun 31/Oct/2021 16:01:03 +0100 John Levine wrote:
It appears that Alessandro Vesely said:
>> Another criterion, beside tree-walk and PSL, could be to look at
the d= tag of
the DKIM signatures that are aligned with the From: domain. Would that be
semantically equivalent to the procedure
On Sun 31/Oct/2021 16:27:14 +0100 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On October 31, 2021 11:29:41 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Sat 30/Oct/2021 22:56:00 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On October 30, 2021 8:47:51 PM UTC, John Levine wrote:
According to Scott Kitterman :
That usage has proven to
John said
I don't immediately see the utility of the org domain of the HELO unless
you're
checking SPF on a bounce, but why wouldn't you do the same tree walk?
Apparently he has never evaluated the reputation of server organizations by
aggregating data based on server organization. It is a
On October 31, 2021 11:29:41 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>On Sat 30/Oct/2021 22:56:00 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On October 30, 2021 8:47:51 PM UTC, John Levine wrote:
>>> According to Scott Kitterman :
>That usage has proven to work quite well. And some respect for the
It appears that Alessandro Vesely said:
The alternative I suggested is 100% compatible with the installed base.
If a domain has published DMARC policy per RFC 7489, the proposed new
approach will still find it.
>
>Yes, but would PSL-based DMARC filters have to be re-written,
On Sat 30/Oct/2021 22:56:00 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On October 30, 2021 8:47:51 PM UTC, John Levine wrote:
According to Scott Kitterman :
That usage has proven to work quite well. And some respect for the installed
base wouldn't hurt.
The alternative I suggested is 100% compatible
On October 30, 2021 8:47:51 PM UTC, John Levine wrote:
>According to Scott Kitterman :
>>>That usage has proven to work quite well. And some respect for the
>>>installed
>>>base wouldn't hurt.
>>
>>The alternative I suggested is 100% compatible with the installed base. If a
>>domain has
According to Scott Kitterman :
>>That usage has proven to work quite well. And some respect for the installed
>>base wouldn't hurt.
>
>The alternative I suggested is 100% compatible with the installed base. If a
>domain has published DMARC policy per RFC 7489, the proposed new approach will
18 matches
Mail list logo
