John,
On 23-12-16 17:10, John Comfort via dmarc-discuss wrote:
Maybe it is time to rethink this, or open a more official dialogue. I
understand folks don't want to send reports. I understand the privacy
issue. However, without these reports, or at least *some* information
sent regarding
On 12-12-16 07:47, Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss wrote:
John Levine wrote:
>>John Levine wrote:
>>
>>> This would be a good time to reread RFC 7489, particularly section
>>> 6.6.3, and very particularly numbered item 3 in that section.
>>
>>This is simply the DNS record discovery mechanism.
On 22-10-15 21:36, Andrew Beverley via dmarc-discuss wrote:
On Thu, 2015-10-22 at 10:19 -0700, Franck Martin via dmarc-discuss
wrote:
The fun is moving to ARC
https://dmarc.org/2015/10/global-mailbox-providers-deploying-dmarc-to-protect-users/
Sad to see that Gmail plan to move to p=reject
Hi, Terry,
On 22-10-15 22:16, Terry Zink via dmarc-discuss wrote:
Sad to see that Gmail plan to move to p=reject
Why do you say this? Because it will disrupt mailing lists (as in, yahoo.com
refugees moved to gmail.com and now that will no longer available)?
If ARC solves the problem of
