meaning
to ask: which cutoff? (More broadly, are the remaining steps documented
somewhere?)
- Roland
On 10/16/2013 08:56 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Hi all,
I'm planning to scrape this list for items that would be good to include
in a revision to the draft and post it prior
-02 of the base draft in progress. Regarding outstanding issues, I have
some things to bring to the list, starting here:
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Andreas Schulze s...@andreasschulze.dewrote:
If nobody implemented http reporting yet
we should consider removing it from the spec...
Any
I don't see any action items here in terms of changes to the base draft.
Am I correct in that assessment? I'll assume yes; someone should speak up
if otherwise.
-MSK
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 8:32 PM, Steven M Jones s...@crash.com wrote:
Adding the [dmarc-ietf] list for spec considerations.
Any other input on this point? DMARC currently only considers the SPF
result if there is alignment between the return path and the From field.
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Raman Gupta rocketra...@gmail.com wrote:
I encountered a use case recently with an auto-generated email with
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Vlatko Salaj vlatko.sa...@goodone.tkwrote:
however, waking those SRS ppl up may rly require some authority figure.
they are,
kind of, happy with their protocol, and its stability and usage. do try,
if u
wish. at least i will be grateful. :)=
It's kind of
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Vlatko Salaj vlatko.sa...@goodone.tkwrote:
It may not be that ATPS solves any of your problems, but the ATPS
community
(small as it is) can similarly say that SRS doesn't solve theirs.
well, i do not have any proposal on how to fix ATPS-induced DKIM
On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Miles Fidelman
mfidel...@meetinghouse.netwrote:
Well, let's see:
- DMARC.org defines the DMARC Base Specification with a link to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base/ - an IETF
document
- they published an information Internet draft,
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Vlatko Salaj vlatko.sa...@goodone.tkwrote:
wrong conclusion, but i'm not gonna repeat myself.
one example should be enough to everybody.
I think if you want to get your ideas understood and thus adopted, you're
going to have to set your patience and
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Joseph Humphreys
jhumphr...@salesforce.com wrote:
The alignment domain-list solution seems trivial to me, and it works
without active support from the sender, which is nice.
How does it work without active support from the sender? Doesn't the
sender first
Colleagues,
The IETF has some written guidelines about management of and conduct on
mailing lists. In particular, the IETF's anti-harassment policy [1] and a
number of RFCs [2] [3] [4] [5] and IESG statements [6] [7] form the body of
the IETF's guidelines and procedures regarding mailing list
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Brandon Long bl...@google.com wrote:
There seem to be rather a lot, since it's a feature on most magazine
and newspaper web sites. Since you mentioned the WSJ, they use the
user's own address as the From: address (I just checked.) Some do the
hack you
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:28 PM, J. Gomez jgo...@seryrich.com wrote:
I don't believe TPA-Label hits the mark between solving a big hurt
and simple. IOW, it's too complicated for the amount of pain it
would resolve. Just my opinion, take care,
I'm of the same opinion as above.
In my
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com
wrote:
The reason there is no IETF working group is that the people behind DMARC
were
unwilling to entertain participation in a working group that had a charter
that allowed for any chance of a change to the DMARC protocol.
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:25 AM, John Sweet sw...@secondlook.com wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Brandon Long bl...@google.com wrote:
I think many of the folks on this list don't use email the way that the
vast majority of people do.
The longer I work in email, the less I feel as
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com
wrote:
There is a discussion about defining new codes for email authentication
failures in progress on apps-discuss which may interest people interested
in
this particular topic.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Vlatko Salaj vlatko.sa...@goodone.tk
wrote:
i need DMARC alignment rigidity gone. and some wise ppl to accept it.
well, we may lack that, i guess.
Mr. Salaj,
I recently sent a message to the list explaining that we require the
discussions on this list to be
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 4:52 PM, J. Gomez jgo...@seryrich.com wrote:
MUAs SHOULD display to the end user, in UTF8 (and punycode), in a
non ambiguous font, the domain used for the assertion of the DMARC
policy, as well as the result of this assertion. A non ambiguous font
is a font where
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
Fundamentally, any From-Corruption (good term to use) concept is bad. 30
years of mail software/product/hosting development across multiple networks
tells me so, it ethically burns inside me as wrong and I have strong
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 2:30 PM, J. Gomez jgo...@seryrich.com wrote:
True, but at the same time UX is something that every user can talk about,
as per se every user has experience with it.
Every time I hear that UI is a black art to be refined only by ultra
specialists, I shiver in fear,
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org
wrote:
[2] PGP can be worked around by placing the signed body in a separate
MIME part from the header and/or footer parts, and DKIM could at least
be adapted to decorated subjects using z= and footers using l=,
although
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Vlatko Salaj vlatko.sa...@goodone.tk
wrote:
introducing new ML requirements has already been
characterised as not an ML solution. we have a few
of them already, and all much simpler than any YADAs.
The person on this list that actually represents a mailing
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Franck Martin fra...@peachymango.org
wrote:
--
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Franck Martin fra...@peachymango.org
wrote:
--
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Franck Martin fra...@peachymango.org
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
The person on this list that actually represents a mailing list so far
seems to like the idea, and has explained why to some extent. I think
that's much more valuable feedback.
More valuable than other feedback?
[...]
Hi Alessandro,
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Alessandro Vesely ves...@tana.it wrote:
First, weak signatures which are not part of a chain should be ignored
by verifiers. An authentication chain can be defined as a set of
valid DKIM signatures and possibly an SPF authentication of
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
It is more easier, more feasible, more safe, to just reject/discard
the failed message (due to policy) at the backend and be done with it.
In your opinion.
It is the expert opinion of million of IETF-MAN-HOURS and
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Vlatko Salaj vlatko.sa...@goodone.tk
wrote:
That, sir, is false, both as to fact and as to causality.
The choice was among different varieties of pain, but
no amount of preparation would have made the pain avoidable.
that's a completely wrong assumption.
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Vlatko Salaj vlatko.sa...@goodone.tk
wrote:
u ppl keep repeating that. however, u never say what IS the reason.
why don't u enlighten us, then?
Instead of assuming the reason and thus making false accusations, you
could've asked for the details first.
Colleagues,
Under the procedures of BCP 94, the list administrators have decided to
moderate the access of Vlatko Salaj to the mailing list, effective
immediately, until 10 July 2014. If Mr. Salaj posts anything, it will come
to us first, and we shall permit the message to be posted only if, in
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Vlatko Salaj vlatko.sa...@goodone.tk
wrote:
the story of my life... i'm always in minority, fighting for
survival.
It is entirely possible to fight for the minority without acting this way.
It's unfortunate that you feel like your lifetime of frustration
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
On 6/11/2014 4:58 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
One thing that is missing (and there's a placeholder for it) is
examples so you can see how it works. I'll make sure that's there for
-01.
Examples are good. Can we
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Dave Crocker dcroc...@gmail.com wrote:
The irony of your suggestion is that it requires having 'unupgraded'
software reliably use the version number, given that they haven't needed
to do that before either...
Section 6.1.1 of DKIM makes it a MUST that
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Elizabeth Zwicky zwi...@yahoo-inc.com
wrote:
On 6/12/14, 9:36 AM, Terry Zink tz...@exchange.microsoft.com wrote:
Franck Martin wrote:
I found that to build the override list for mailing list, I could log
DMARC rejected
emails that contained a List-Id
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org
wrote:
Can't both the version bump issue and the token signature issue be
ameliorated by incorporating the token signature in the DKIM-Delegate
field?
There's a protocol collision on the t= tag which would need to be
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 12:35 PM, ned+dm...@mrochek.com wrote:
Yes, you could do the equivalent of the version bump by changing the
name of the header, but I don't see the point.
If you're going to bump the version, you need to use the opportunity to
solve the more general underlying
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org
wrote:
How about a new tag, shf= (special header fields). Ignored by legacy
verifiers, as required; otherwise, contains a colon-separated list of
fields that get special handling by verifiers. Special handling
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:17 PM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
Here's a draft that puts the forwarding thing into DKIM, with the
dread version bump. It defines a general syntax for conditional
signatures, with the forwarding signature the only condition defined
so far. (Since you
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
While DKIM-BASE tried to clean up this separation of the author domain
policy, it could not because of all the past existing ADSP or SSP
references in the many DKIM related RFCs, see RFC6376, section 1.1. But
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Douglas Otis doug.mtv...@gmail.com
wrote:
Our company has had extensive experience dealing with email spoofing.
While reputation is able to deal with bulk spamming, it is ineffective at
dealing with a phishing problem, the intent behind DMARC. It is a basic
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Ned Freed ned.fr...@mrochek.com wrote:
I'm uneasy with an increase in version that isn't done in a complete
replacement for RFC6376. We're not just registering a couple of new
extension tags here. I would prefer that, if we do go decide to go down
this
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 4:20 PM, John R Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
I'm uneasy with an increase in version that isn't done in a complete
replacement for RFC6376.
The problem may be that we don't agree about what DKIM versions mean.
Here's what I would like them to mean:
[...]
Actually
: New Version Notification for draft-kucherawy-dkim-delegate-01.txt
To: Murray S. Kucherawy superu...@gmail.com, Dave Crocker
dcroc...@bbiw.net
A new version of I-D, draft-kucherawy-dkim-delegate-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Murray S. Kucherawy and posted to the
IETF repository
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:21 AM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
This looks an awful lot like my draft-levine-cdkim-00 and
draft-levine-dkim-conditional-00 except that mine has more bits of
DKIM in the cdkim signature so it can sign To and From to limit the
range of spoofage.
The
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Jim Fenton fen...@bluepopcorn.net wrote:
The base specification relies on the ability of an email receiver to
determine the organizational domain responsible for sending mail. An
organizational domain is the basic domain name obtained through a public
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Alessandro Vesely ves...@tana.it wrote:
My question about the stance toward DKIM tweaks[1] was never answered.
To re-state, while preclusion is apparent for the organizational
domain issue, it is not clear for DKIM. The charter says:
The working group
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Douglas Otis doug.mtv...@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed, as it seems such efforts have been excluded by the charter
language. It would be a shame, since there needs to be a remedy permitting
back-office services such as those offered by Intuit and the like. It
seems
[Changing Subject: to a new thread and dropping i...@ietf.org, since this
is not charter discussion]
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Douglas Otis doug.mtv...@gmail.com
wrote:
ATPS is not the lite version of TPA-Label. This is explained in
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Tomki Camp tc...@agari.com wrote:
5.2 has 'A DMARC policy record MUST comply with the formal specification
found in Section 5.3
http://www.blackops.org/%7Emsk/dmarc/draft-dmarc-base.html#dmarc_abnf in
that the v and p tags MUST be present and MUST appear in
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net
wrote:
I did notice the absence of anything related to process. How are we going
to get to a document (that) captures all known interoperability issue
between DMARC and indirect email flows? If this were an RFC,
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Tim Draegen t...@eudaemon.net wrote:
Simply put, the public suffix concept is useful beyond what DMARC requires
of it. The best that DMARC can do (as a piece of technology) is fully
articulate 1 specific use case for the public suffix concept, and hope that
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Douglas Otis doug.mtv...@gmail.com wrote:
While the PSL might be useful for offering some web related assertions,
its current form is inappropriate for email policy. Those working on the
web/email related issues might hope these common concerns will engender
Though I would never put such a thing in a standards document, OpenDKIM
does have the capability to rewrite arriving header fields prior to
signing/verifying to overcome things like this. Your ESP's verifier could
be trained to ignore the added line prior to verifying, or better yet, do
DKIM
How will most mail clients know not to display it if it's made part of the
body?
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Terry Zink tz...@exchange.microsoft.com
wrote:
Having the Virus scanned by xxx defeats the purpose of advertising
because most mail clients won't display it, and the point of
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Sven Krohlas sven.kroh...@1und1.de wrote:
RFC 7372 proposes to use a 550 response code for reverse DNS auth
failures, see section 3.3.
Reverse DNS checks are usually done early in the connection (like IP
blocks) in the connection establishment stage of the
Colleagues,
As you know, the DMARC base draft is being processed via the Independent
Stream. Procedurally it's ready to move forward toward publication, with
the caveat that the prose in it needs a serious haircut. (There is also
the option to split the document before publishing it, but I
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld
r.e.sonnev...@sonnection.nl wrote:
Can I get some clarification on the intent here? As worded, this
paragraph suggests that we are looking to produce a model for MLMs to
follow in a DMARC-aware world. I was under the impression that (a)
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
Murray, I think we need to make the distinction of two different concepts
and acronyms; MLM Mailing List Manager and MLS Mail List Servers that
serve the MLM market. There are some basic integration guidelines for both
the
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Tim Draegen t...@eudaemon.net wrote:
The intention is to have something in place -- the MLM model -- that can
be used to quickly identify issues that are related to DMARC
interoperability with any given piece of MLM software. I read Alessandro's
model as a way
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
I'm already lost of whats going on. It seems we are waiting of Murray. Its
all Murray. Geez, Its all really Murray's framework to all this. Not a
negative, but there has to be more. There is more. There has always been
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 10/25/2014 12:34 PM, J. Gomez wrote:
DMARC is a DKIM Policy Framework. According the marketing, it has gain
widespread adoption especially among your list users domains. Isn't
why you are here, to stop it?
If by
Colleagues,
With apologies once again that it's taken so long, I have submitted the
base draft again to the datatracker. It underwent what Eliot Lear calls a
haircut, which is to say I spent a good chunk of time rearranging the
material, consolidating redundant sections, removing unnecessarily
Just noticed that I never replied to this:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com
wrote:
Since this is the WG list, I'm not sure if this is still the right list for
issues with the base spec or not, but here goes ...
The definition of fo in Section 5.2, General
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com
wrote:
On Sunday, November 02, 2014 01:42:49 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
...
As was done with the DKIM deployment RFCs, the same has been done for
DMARC. It seems neither DKIM nor DMARC follow the path of least
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Terry Zink tz...@exchange.microsoft.com
wrote:
Since SPF authorizes an often _shared_ outbound IP address, it has been
accurately described
as an authorization method. DMaRC permits a DKIM signature to be
spoofed and still allow
a message to be accepted
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 10:06 AM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
1) Evaluate all the domains you find, and if any of them have published
DMARC policies, apply the strictest one ...
Given the anti-phishing goals of DMARC, I don't see how anything else
makes any sense. Or you could skip a
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 8:57 PM, turnb...@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp wrote:
Trent Adams writes:
-
It is important to note that identifier alignment cannot occur, and
DMARC determination applied, with a message that is not valid per RFC
5322 [MAIL]. This is particularly true when a message has
I've posted an update to the base draft, based on recent feedback from Ned
and others. Hopefully I've resolved all of the concerns (especially the
major ones), as the ISE would like to send the draft to the IESG for
conflict review in the next day or two. It also has to begin formal review
of
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Franck Martin fra...@peachymango.org
wrote:
I'm just asking for this list to be set up exactly like the i...@ietf.org
list. If Elizabeth ensures she emails in txt only, everything will be fine.
i...@ietf.org is the outlier, actually. Every other IETF list
Colleagues,
draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base is nearing IESG conflict review, and it's been
pointed out that a review from back in April has not been properly attended
to.
Could I get the WG (forgive me, co-chairs!) to comment on this so that I
can see what changes might be appropriate here? Having
Hi Rolf, getting back to your review (thanks for the nudge):
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld
r.e.sonnev...@sonnection.nl wrote:
Abstract:
This lack of cohesion has several effects: receivers have difficulty
providing feedback to senders about authentication, senders
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com
wrote:
As I read -08 what to do in that case is undefined. There's a dangling
pointer
to 5.6.3. It's dangling because nothing in that section addresses the
question of how to handle DKIM/SPF temporary errors.
5.6.3's
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com
wrote:
There was a recent thread on postfix-users about DMARC rejections when
there
are DNS errors that caused me to review -08 to see what it says on the
matter.
At the end of section 5.6.2, it says:
Handling of
Covering the stuff Dave didn't cover:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Jim Fenton fen...@bluepopcorn.net wrote:
Top of page 6: The receiver reports to the domain owner... The
receiver actually sends reports to a report receiver designated by the
domain owner.
Fixed.
2.4 Out of Scope
I
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 2:13 AM, Franck Martin fra...@peachymango.org
wrote:
I think we should recommend something here, not sure if it needs to be
normative. We do say to ignore the SPF policy when p!=none, though I think
we can be normative on the lower layers. I see 2 options here:
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Franck Martin fra...@peachymango.org
wrote:
--
*From: *Murray S. Kucherawy superu...@gmail.com
*To: *Franck Martin fra...@peachymango.org
*Cc: *dmarc@ietf.org, Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com
*Sent: *Tuesday, December 23
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com
wrote:
5.6.2 promises 5.6.3 addresses the question and it doesn't. At the very
least, 5.6.2 should be fixed not to over promise what 5.6.3 will provide.
I'm not clear why you say it doesn't. 5.6.3 describes two options for
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 4:04 AM, Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com
wrote:
The draft strongly encourages DMARC implementers to ignore SPF policy, so
I don't think assuming messages will be deferred due only due to SPF or
DKIM results indicating a temporary DNS error is appropriate.
If
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
I disagree. DMARC operators all seem to apply this practice, so it's
correct to say that if you play this game, you reject mail from
non-existent domains. Essentially in this way DMARC is a profile of
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com
wrote:
Messages for which SPF and/or DKIM evaluation encounters a temporary
DNS error have not received a definitive result for steps 3 and/or 4
above.
If the message has not passed the the DMARC mechanism check
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
The goal, as you state it, is at the level of seeking world peace. It
is very laudable and and very, very broad. It covers vastly more than
the scope of DMARC.
DMARC is a specific bit of technology working towards that
On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 1:08 AM, Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com
wrote:
I don't think it does. What I was trying to say is that if you already
got an
aligned pass from one method, you're done. It doesn't matter if they other
one gets a DNS error, you already have a definitive result.
On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Dave Crocker dcroc...@gmail.com wrote:
One could argue either way about the multi-valued From:, but at least it
has an essential relationship to DMARC, since DMARC evaluates From:. If
DMARC were required to handle multi-valued From:, it would alter DMARC
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld
r.e.sonnev...@sonnection.nl wrote:
3.1.3 Flow diagram
The box titled 'User Mailbox' could give the impression that there's only
one choice for delivery. However, quarantining can be done without delivery
to a mailbox. I'd suggest to
OK, seriously, I hope I don't have to crack this open again. Conflict
review is slated for the 1/8 telechat, and a flurry of last minute edits
might not sit well with the IESG. We need to leave actual work, as much as
at all possible, to the WG, and not to hacking on the ISE version.
Diffs to
On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Kurt Andersen kander...@linkedin.com
wrote:
I'm OK with the new wording, but would have liked to see the -09 statement
about reporting temp errors carried over:
When otherwise appropriate due to DMARC policy, receivers MAY send
feedback reports regarding
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Tim Draegen t...@eudaemon.net wrote:
No objection — please do use the WG’s tracker for these items. Anne’s
thorough review will be picked up (and not rediscovered!) if we’ve got an
obvious place to start from.
Done for Anne's points, and I'll do so for Jim
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Tim Draegen t...@eudaemon.net wrote:
DMARC implementations are already in the wild and deployed. Input to the
existing specification will be largely based on working implementations.
You might have your own reasons for waiting for this WG to review the DMARC
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
Hello Anne,
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Anne Bennett a...@encs.concordia.ca
wrote:
Having just spent several hours poring over this document
(-12), I might as well send my additional minor observations.
I suspect that some of you will consider these items trivial,
but they gave me pause
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Anne Bennett a...@encs.concordia.ca
wrote:
I apologize for my inadvertently poor timing; I was catapulted
into all this last week when my parent domain (also my
Organizational Domain) published an SPF record and a DKIM
record, and we became concerned that they
at 4:05 PM, Franck Martin fra...@peachymango.org
wrote:
--
*From: *Murray S. Kucherawy superu...@gmail.com
*To: *dmarc@ietf.org
*Sent: *Friday, January 30, 2015 1:23:48 AM
*Subject: *[dmarc-ietf] Comments on draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability
Thanks for putting
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Tim Draegen t...@eudaemon.net wrote:
Hi Murray Elizabeth, thanks for wrestling this through the process. The
Working Group can now adopt this as input.
/goes off to figure out which buttons need to be pushed
=- Tim
I have to resubmit it as
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Alessandro Vesely ves...@tana.it wrote:
This seems to be a bug:
OLD:
dmarc-uri = URI [ ! 1*DIGIT [ k / m / g / t ] ]
; URI is imported from [URI]; commas (ASCII
; 0x2c) and exclamation points (ASCII
There was one proposed:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-dkim-list-canon-00
This working group will be discussing this and other options before long.
-MSK
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 1:45 PM, John Bucy jb...@google.com wrote:
I was glad to see mention of content-transfer-encoding
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 3/19/2015 12:52 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
And since the From field is the only one users really see every time,
I'm not sure that declaring and supporting yet another
no-seriously-this-is-the-author field would
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Terry Zink tz...@exchange.microsoft.com
wrote:
If bulk email providers have shown no interest in promoting a solution,
why do we think they'd latch onto this new non-aligned header field as a
solution?
+1. And since the From field is the only one users
?
cheers
john
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy superu...@gmail.com
wrote:
There was one proposed:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-dkim-list-canon-00
This working group will be discussing this and other options before long.
-MSK
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 1
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:56 PM, J. Gomez jgo...@seryrich.com wrote:
Why is it better for DMARC to be adapted to indirect email flows, instead
of indirect email flows to be adapted to DMARC?
What does provide more value to end users at large: indirect email flows
to be kept old-style, or the
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:51 AM, Alessandro Vesely ves...@tana.it wrote:
Section 2.2 of RFC3986 lists semi-colon as a reserved character that has
to
be percent-encoded in these URLs. We don't need to repeat it here, I
think.
If the spec is going to be read by ignorants like me, it's
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Steven M Jones s...@crash.com wrote:
Just to be explicit, it also allows for multiple mailto: URIs -
something that is seen in the wild, though perhaps not if one looks up
a half dozen DMARC records at random. But at the end of January multiple
mailto: URIs
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy superu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Your question is Are they equivalent? I believe they are. Although it
might be ideal to have a specification so tight that there's exactly one
way to do something, in the end I don't think it's harmful to have
1 - 100 of 837 matches
Mail list logo
