In article
you write:
>Most MTAs will also follow CNAMEs. Should they be included (along with
>other things like DNAME records) within the scope of existence? I'm a
>little concerned that we are making a special definition of "non-existence"
>which differs from the standard DNS concepts of
On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 1:07:05 AM EDT Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Saturday, July 13, 2019 3:34:51 PM EDT Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Friday, July 12, 2019 2:28:39 PM EDT Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 12, 2019 1:54:57 PM EDT Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 12,
On Friday, July 19, 2019 11:33:38 AM EDT Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 8:30 AM Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:42 PM Scott Kitterman
> >
> > wrote:
> >> If we want to take another run at this and put it in more standard DNS
> >> terminology, then
On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 10:01:01 AM EDT Chudow, Eric B CIV NSA DSAW (USA)
wrote:
...
> For the current wording, I think the “if not” is unclear in the “If absent,
> the policy specified by the "sp" (if present) and then the "p" tag, if not,
> MUST be applied for non-existent subdomains.”
An experimental draft isn't the best place for a deployment guide.
an operational document that discusses deployment among other things is a
different story
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 11:13 PM Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> On Friday, July 19, 2019 11:30:01 AM EDT Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
>
> > >
On Friday, July 19, 2019 8:04:20 AM EDT Dotzero wrote:
> I've been following the discussion but haven't contributed anything until
> this point. Comment below.
>
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 3:29 AM Ian Levy
> 40ncsc.gov...@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> > > I think this is one of those "you must be
On Friday, July 19, 2019 11:30:01 AM EDT Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> > > I'm also concerned
> > > that a wildcard null MX record at the org level would end up having all
> > > subdomains "exist", but the policy that should be applied would be the
> >
> > more
> >
> > > restrictive "np"
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 8:30 AM Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:42 PM Scott Kitterman
> wrote:
>
>>
>> If we want to take another run at this and put it in more standard DNS
>> terminology, then maybe:
>>
>> a domain for which there is an NXDOMAIN or NODATA response
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:42 PM Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> On Thursday, July 18, 2019 11:42:36 AM EDT Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 7:35 PM Scott Kitterman
> >
> > Most MTAs will also follow CNAMEs. Should they be included (along with
> > other things like DNAME records)
I've been following the discussion but haven't contributed anything until
this point. Comment below.
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 3:29 AM Ian Levy wrote:
> > I think this is one of those "you must be this tall to ride on this ride"
> > situations. DNS comes equipped with multiple footguns and you
> I think this is one of those "you must be this tall to ride on this ride"
> situations. DNS comes equipped with multiple footguns and you have to know a
> bit about what you're doing to make sure you get the effects you're after.
This. DMARC today allows people to disconnect their outgoing
11 matches
Mail list logo
