On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:13 PM Scott Kitterman
wrote:
>
> Assuming that's correct, please help me understand what PSD DMARC is
> affected at all. All it does is consume the org domain however
> DMARC/DMARCbis choose to define it. I don't see as it makes a difference
> from a PSD DMARC
On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 10:20:14 PM EST Dave Crocker wrote:
> (I am trying to formulate a response on the higher-level technical and
> process issues under consideration, but decided to respond now on these
> particulars, since they are more focused...)
>
> On 2/3/2020 10:47 AM, Murray S.
(I am trying to formulate a response on the higher-level technical and
process issues under consideration, but decided to respond now on these
particulars, since they are more focused...)
On 2/3/2020 10:47 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Dave,
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 8:44 AM Dave Crocker
In article ,
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I think what Dave proposed about PSL separation from DMARC is entirely
>>> appropriate and pragmatic, and in fact probably easy enough: DMARC is
>>> changed so that it says the organizational domain is determined using some
>>> process
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 6:36 PM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 1:44 PM Dotzero wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 4:26 PM Murray S. Kucherawy
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think what Dave proposed about PSL separation from DMARC is entirely
>>> appropriate and pragmatic, and
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 1:44 PM Dotzero wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 4:26 PM Murray S. Kucherawy
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I think what Dave proposed about PSL separation from DMARC is entirely
>> appropriate and pragmatic, and in fact probably easy enough: DMARC is
>> changed so that it says the
On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 4:26:30 PM EST Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 1:20 PM Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > I agree on DMARCbis. I don't think advancing this draft has a significant
> > effect on that. Worst case, if DMARCbis is done before we can reach any
> >
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 4:26 PM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
>
>
> I think what Dave proposed about PSL separation from DMARC is entirely
> appropriate and pragmatic, and in fact probably easy enough: DMARC is
> changed so that it says the organizational domain is determined using some
> process
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 1:20 PM Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I agree on DMARCbis. I don't think advancing this draft has a significant
> effect on that. Worst case, if DMARCbis is done before we can reach any
> conclusions about PSD DMARC, then we publish DMARCbis without PSD DMARC in
> it.
>
I
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 12:25 PM Dotzero wrote:
> I am not against experiments, but having reread the entire thread starting
> from Dave's post in August, I believe his concerns are valid.
>
I want to say again that I make no assertion that any of Dave's claims are
invalid. The main thing I
On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 3:50:12 PM EST Dotzero wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 3:44 PM Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 3:25:06 PM EST Dotzero wrote:
> > > I am not against experiments, but having reread the entire thread
> >
> > starting
> >
> > > from Dave's post
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 3:44 PM Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 3:25:06 PM EST Dotzero wrote:
> > I am not against experiments, but having reread the entire thread
> starting
> > from Dave's post in August, I believe his concerns are valid. My question
> > to the chairs and
Scott--I agree whole-heartedly. One has to wonder if delaying or impeding
advancement of this I-D, because of an external dependency that appears
unlikely to be resolved in a timely fashion, is making the perfect the
enemy of the good. This group has much accomplish in a time frame quite
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 3:39 PM Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 3:25:06 PM EST Dotzero wrote:
> > Someone pointed to Sender-ID as an example experiment. A very poor
> example
> > to choose. It was broken from the start. As an aside, I kept sending
> email
> > to the folks at
On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 3:25:06 PM EST Dotzero wrote:
> I am not against experiments, but having reread the entire thread starting
> from Dave's post in August, I believe his concerns are valid. My question
> to the chairs and the group as a whole is whether an experiment can be
> constructed
On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 3:25:06 PM EST Dotzero wrote:
> Someone pointed to Sender-ID as an example experiment. A very poor example
> to choose. It was broken from the start. As an aside, I kept sending email
> to the folks at Microsoft using @Microsoft.com email addresses by using
> "Sender"
I do not support publishing draft-ietf-dmarc-psd as is. Running code and
rough consensus.
I, as were a few others on the list, was part of the private effort that
eventually became the "DMARC team". I point out that until DMARC was
published openly, the experiment had absolutely zero impact on
On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 12:39:09 PM EST Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> I support publishing the I-D as confirmed in the WGLC with (perhaps) some
> additional caveats regarding the ephemerality of the Experiment as deemed
> necessary by the chairs.
>
> Given the expected duration of the
On Mon 03/Feb/2020 19:47:45 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> Now, to the working group as a whole:
>
> The chairs note that we have a duly and properly completed WGLC in hand.
> Still, Dave's concerns have validity, so they need to be considered by the
> working group. Since we need to do
On Monday, February 3, 2020 1:47:45 PM EST Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Now, to the working group as a whole:
>
> The chairs note that we have a duly and properly completed WGLC in hand.
> Still, Dave's concerns have validity, so they need to be considered by the
> working group. Since we need
20 matches
Mail list logo
