Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

Actually, do you have any more specifics for me to take a look? Best case would be the recipient and message-id of something that ended up in the spam label. Off list would be fine. Brandon On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Brandon Long wrote: > I'll take a look. > > On Thu,

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

I'll take a look. On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Roland Turner < roland.tur...@trustsphere.com> wrote: > John Payne wrote: > > >> Presumably this just indicates that the rewrite rule that Brandon > described for Google Groups > >> is not in use by IETF's mailing lists? > >> > >> Tradeoffs in

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

John Payne wrote: > Spoke too soon. I'm getting reports of IETF list mail from @akamai.com ending > up in Gmail spam folders :( > >> On Jan 31, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Payne, John via dmarc-discuss >> wrote: >> >> And it did the trick. Down to a manageable number of

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

Spoke too soon. I'm getting reports of IETF list mail from @akamai.com ending up in Gmail spam folders :( > On Jan 31, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Payne, John via dmarc-discuss > wrote: > > And it did the trick. Down to a manageable number of failures now, thanks > for the

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

On Jan 19, 2017, at 12:26 AM, Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss > wrote: Brandon Long wrote: > If you go to p=quarantine and pct=0, Google Groups will still do the > rewriting, but no one > should enforce the quarantine. I know this is

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

John Payne wrote: > That's awesome. Do we have enough implementers on this list to gain any > confidence on whether or not > p=quarantine and pct=0 would enforce quarantine or not? It is a reasonably safe bet that pct=0 will prevent quarantining. (Any receiver observed doing otherwise will no

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

ect employees to avoid using their > work email addresses for mailing lists? (This won't solve the problem, but > may significantly reduce it.) Are you able to quantify the damage being done > at present? (If not, stop work on this now!) > > > - Roland > > From: Payne, J

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

If so, are the stakes >> high enough that you're in a position to direct employees to avoid using >> their work email addresses for mailing lists? (This won't solve the >> problem, but may significantly reduce it.) Are you able to quantify the >> damage being done at present?

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Payne, John wrote: > > > On Oct 26, 2016, at 11:36 AM, Franck Martin wrote: > > > > 4) GApps DKIM signs all the emails with .gappssmtp.com >

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

> *From:* Payne, John <jpa...@akamai.com> > *Sent:* Friday, 28 October 2016 04:45 > *To:* Roland Turner > *Cc:* DMARC Discussion List > *Subject:* Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet? > > > > On Oct 26, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Roland Turner via dmarc-discu

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

at present? (If not, stop work on this now!) - Roland From: Payne, John <jpa...@akamai.com> Sent: Friday, 28 October 2016 04:45 To: Roland Turner Cc: DMARC Discussion List Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet? > On Oct 26, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Roland T

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

> On Oct 26, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss > wrote: > > Payne, John wrote: > > > Yeah, but why are they showing up in _my_ DMARC reports? > ... > > Domain MAIL FROM DKIM domain SPF AuthDKIM Auth > > Total > > akamai.com

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

Payne, John wrote: > Yeah, but why are they showing up in _my_ DMARC reports? ... > Domain MAIL FROM DKIM domain SPF AuthDKIM Auth Total > akamai.com >

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

On Oct 26, 2016, at 11:36 AM, Franck Martin > wrote: Couple of points... 1)

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

Couple of points... 1) https://github.com/linkedin/dmarc-msys/blob/master/dmarc.lua#L804 This is how we detect if the email is likely to be from a mailing list. I parse the logs from time to time, and put exceptions in our local policy. 2) very few lists discard DMARC protected emails on

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

> On Sep 27, 2016, at 12:23 PM, Terry Zink via dmarc-discuss > wrote: > >> Somewhat related (to my earlier post) - are there any _enterprises_ on this >> list that have >> experience or are currently attempting to either go p=reject or enforce >> DMARC policies

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

> On Sep 26, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Franck Martin wrote: > > We do enforce inbound policy, in fact this has been very useful, when you > send to yourself a copy of the failure reports, It allows you to find > problems with your email streams before they become real problems

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

> Somewhat related (to my earlier post) - are there any _enterprises_ on this > list that have > experience or are currently attempting to either go p=reject or enforce DMARC > policies inbound? I just wrote one for Microsoft:

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

I'll second what Franck has said - Once we we figured out all of the 3rd parties we needed to talk to, virtually everyone was happy to work with us to find a solution. The biggest problem we've had, by far, was internals who couldn't be bothered to figure out how mail works, and then suddenly

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

On Tue 20/Sep/2016 08:44:00 +0200 Povl Hessellund Pedersen wrote: Authentication-Results: spf=pass (sender IP is 209.85.214.50) smtp.mailfrom=my.test.dk; dsg.dk; dkim=pass (signature was verified) header.d=my.test.dk;dsg.dk; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=my.test.dk;dsg.dk; dkim=pass

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

I work in a larger enterprise, largest retailer in Denmark with branches in multiple countries. We have been using SPF for years now with -all We started on DKIM / DMARC earlier this year for outbound, we are on O365. We had some issues that are resolved. We have moved all mass mailing /

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

> On Oct 22, 2015, at 3:43 PM, Payne, John wrote: > > >> On Oct 22, 2015, at 3:36 PM, 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 >>>

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Andrew Beverley via dmarc-discuss < dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote: > Certainly happy to sponsor the development of open source libraries (and > assist with testing), if anyone is interested in being on the receiving > end (or also contributing)? > TDP will be

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

Dave, > I look at it a little differently, it's the people (mailing list > operators) who want to /modify/ my message that need to take steps to > not break my DMARC in the process. I look at it a little differently. As an end-user of email services I don't really care about your DMARC[1],

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

Scott Kitterman wrote: >> On October 26, 2015 9:12:17 AM EDT, Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss >> wrote: >>Scott Kitterman wrote: > ... > snipped down to one bit as we seem to mostly be going around in circles > ... >>> As a domain owner, I can control what sources of

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

Andrew, > Nothin' for nothin', but this seems like an awful lot of mechanism for > a pretty low-value piece of data, and if I'm reading you right the > people who have to implement this (at least mailing list operators) > need to do this so that someone _else's_ use of DMARC works, right? I

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

On 2015-10-27 00:30, Andrew Sullivan via dmarc-discuss wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:22:46PM -0700, Shal Farley via dmarc-discuss wro> By itself though the identification is not enough - it doesn't tell the receiver that the claim is false; the receiver must independently assess the

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

Shal wrote: > Roland wrote: > >> - Forwarders who are large enough to be monitoring deliverability can >> trivially determine whether their ARC-signing is being successfully >> validated and/or when receivers trust them enough to accept messages >> despite failing DMARC. > > I see how that is

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

Roland wrote: > - Forwarders who are large enough to be monitoring deliverability can > trivially determine whether their ARC-signing is being successfully > validated and/or when receivers trust them enough to accept messages > despite failing DMARC. I see how that is possible when the

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

Scott Kitterman wrote: > Okay. If I implement ARC as a receiver, then I ignore p=reject > from Senders I trust not to lie to me if it passes ARC? p=reject is asserted by Domain Owners, whether or not they're senders. This is orthogonal to ARC's interest in forwarders. The situation in which to

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

Scott Kitterman wrote: > On October 23, 2015 1:48:13 AM EDT, Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss > wrote: >>The question is not who you trust - ARC doesn't directly change that - >>but how you reliably automate determining whether the message was >>forwarded only by people

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

Shal wrote: > Although I think ARC is a step forward, I think it still leaves list > managers with a bit of a conundrum, at least in the near and moderate > term: at what point does it make sense for the list service to invest > the effort in implementing ARC processing? There are multiple

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

On Monday, October 26, 2015 7:52 AM [GMT+1=CET], Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss wrote: > J. Gomez wrote: > > > How do you know the sender is trustworthy, if the email > > he sends is failing a DMARC check? > > This question is an operational one that is out of scope for a > protocol

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

On October 26, 2015 9:12:17 AM EDT, Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss wrote: >Scott Kitterman wrote: ... snipped down to one bit as we seem to mostly be going around in circles ... >> As a domain owner, I can control what sources of mail are able to >> generate mail that

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

> -Original Message- > From: dmarc-discuss [mailto:dmarc-discuss-boun...@dmarc.org] On Behalf > Of Scott Kitterman via dmarc-discuss > Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 8:04 AM > To: dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org > Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet? > > On Monday

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

On Monday, October 26, 2015 06:47:33 AM Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss wrote: > Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On October 23, 2015 1:48:13 AM EDT, Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss wrote: > >>The question is not who you trust - ARC doesn't directly change that - > >>but how

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Monday, October 26, 2015 06:47:33 AM Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss wrote: >> Scott Kitterman wrote: >> > I don't see why the signing domain of the DKIM signature that could be >> > added by the most recent sender doesn't already give an identifier to use >> > to

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

J.Gomez, > Is this ARC thing a mechanism to know when it is safe to ignore > the sender's DMARC policy of "p=reject"? It helps in judging that, but isn't complete by itself (you still need a reputation system for the intermediaries). > And if it is such, shouldn't it be part of the DMARC

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

Scott, > So the idea is that arbitrary data added from an untrusted sender > (unknown reputation) is sufficient to override DMARC p=reject? No, that isn't the idea at all. It is up to the receiving service to decide how to handle the ARC information, but the guidance is not to simply accept

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

Scott, > As described in the drafts, the ARC stamp is applied by the > intermediary, not the originator, so I don't think that works. Yes, but the intermediaries had to sign their ARC seal, and thereby identify themselves in a non-forgeable way. > Even if it did, it's still just another

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Scott Kitterman via dmarc-discuss wrote: >>ARC should be helpful in that perhaps non-exotic situation. > > Could be. I certainly don't claim it's not potentially useful. My concern > is that it seems to be marketed as a solution to the

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

Shal wrote: > By allowing greater automation and accuracy in identifying > intermediaries ARC may benefit the little guys the most - you > won't as likely be lost in the noise because the receivers will > be more likely to track the reputation of each and every ARC > participant they receive

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

Al Iverson wrote: > From my own perspective, I'm unclear on how well this will work. I > assume the chain process is based on addressing anything thrown at at > it; mailing list posts going through mail forwarding; ARC on both > would in theory keep authentication intact and prevent p=reject

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

I think ARC is making it clear it does not provide a chain of trust but a custodial chain. Assessing the trust of this custodial chain is left as an exercise to the implementer :P Seriously, a very simple system, is to extract all the domains in the chain and see if any is on a blocklist

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

On Thu, 2015-10-22 at 20:16 +, Terry Zink via dmarc-discuss wrote: > > > > Sad to see that Gmail plan to move to p=reject > > Why do you say this? Because I thought Google "got it", and the announcement seems a little premature. > Because it will disrupt mailing lists The reasons have

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

On October 23, 2015 2:10:26 PM EDT, "J. Gomez via dmarc-discuss" wrote: >On Friday, October 23, 2015 4:07 PM, Scott Kitterman via dmarc-discuss >wrote: > >> On October 23, 2015 1:48:13 AM EDT, Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss >> wrote: >> >

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

The fun is moving to ARC https://dmarc.org/2015/10/global-mailbox-providers-deploying-dmarc-to-protect-users/ On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Mark Rousell via dmarc-discuss < dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote: > Is it just me or was the last post on here really on 5th October? > > -- > Mark

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Andrew Beverley 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

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

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

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

On October 22, 2015 1:19:51 PM EDT, 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/ > How does that actually help? At least as I read the draft, anyone can make up

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

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

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

here.com > > > > >From: dmarc-discuss <dmarc-discuss-boun...@dmarc.org> on behalf of >Scott Kitterman via dmarc-discuss <dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> >Sent: Friday, 23 October 2015 04:44 >To: dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org >Subje

[dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

Is it just me or was the last post on here really on 5th October? -- Mark Rousell ___ dmarc-discuss mailing list dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to