Re: [dmarc-discuss] introduction to the list-virtual server & mailman questions

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Al Iverson via dmarc-discuss < dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:51 PM, John R Levine via dmarc-discuss > wrote: > >> It is even worse than I thought, you really want to stop efforts in > >> fighting phish, by

Re: [dmarc-discuss] I need an advice

My pleasure, now watch out for Business Email Compromise (BEC) and Account Take Over (ATO). Your domain is hosted via Google Apps, as they use DMARC to filter incoming emails, now nobody can inject into your system an email that would look like internal (as per your domain name), this will help a

Re: [dmarc-discuss] I need an advice

Hi Franck, you were right. After a couple of weeks introducing reject policy, I noticed a decrease of Threat/Unknown sources and now I get just a few of those. It worked! Thank you very much. *Denis Salicetti* Avviso di riservatezza |

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Sub-domain validation

Relaxed alignment means the identifier domain (SPF or DKIM) have the same organizational domain as the domain in the RFC5322.From. On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Brotman, Alexander via dmarc-discuss < dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote: > Hello, > > I have a question about how to interpret a

[dmarc-discuss] Sub-domain validation

Hello, I have a question about how to interpret a message for DMARC validation, relating to section 3.1.1, specifically: To illustrate, in relaxed mode, if a validated DKIM signature successfully verifies with a "d=" domain of "example.com", and the RFC5322.From address is

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Sub-domain validation

Brotman, Alexander wrote: > I have a question about how to interpret a message for DMARC validation, > relating to section 3.1.1, specifically: > >To illustrate, in relaxed mode, if a validated DKIM signature >successfully verifies with a "d=" domain of "example.com", and the >

Re: [dmarc-discuss] introduction to the list-virtual server & mailman questions

>Not to mention this is also a privacy issue. Now the owner of dmarc.fail >has visibility on some traffic he/she should not see. Oh, come on. The owner of dmarc.fail is me, and I assign the addresses to mail that goes through my own web server. R's, John

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Experience 16 days with DMARC

I'd suggest a few things: - You're looking a little too closely at daily changes, particularly around implementation time. Allow the thing some time to settle, perhaps a month, before considering next steps. Bear in mind that there are multiple, independent good and evil actors here, each

Re: [dmarc-discuss] introduction to the list-virtual server & mailman questions

Scott, You're [still!] confusing multiple conceptions of trust, including at least: 1) trust in the intention and ability of multiple upstream forwarders to ARC-sign correctly, 2) trust in the lack of intention to abuse by the organisation at the other end of the SMTP connection, and 3) trust