A small follow up about my DMARC view:
> On Jun 30, 2023, at 4:02 PM, Hector Santos
> wrote:
>
> Overall, imo, it is never a good idea to exerted changes on domains with bis
> specs, requiring them to change their current DMARC record to reinforce the
> security level they want using SPF in
Dear Barry Leiba,
The session(s) that you have requested have been scheduled.
Below is the scheduled session information followed by
the original request.
dmarc Session 1 (1:00 requested)
Friday, 28 July 2023, Session II 1200-1330 America/Los_Angeles
Room Name: Golden Gate 6 size:
Great question.
I’ve been around since the beginning as a very strong DKIM Policy advocate,
watching everything, my dumb attempt to summarize:
1) The idea of “reporting” was considered a testing thing. Redundant,.
DomainKeys and DKIM had -t test keys. I believed and others as well, felt
> On Jun 30, 2023, at 3:32 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 12:21 AM Jan Dušátko
> mailto:40dusatko@dmarc.ietf.org>>
> wrote:
>> Scott, Barry,
>> as far as I understand, SPF are historic technology,
>
> Not in any official capacity. RFC 7208 is a Proposed
On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 12:21 AM Jan Dušátko wrote:
> Scott, Barry,
> as far as I understand, SPF are historic technology,
>
Not in any official capacity. RFC 7208 is a Proposed Standard. In fact,
in IETF terms, it enjoys higher status than DMARC does right now.
The status of these protocols
Given Todd's comment that "DMAR" is well defined, but "C" is not-- is it
worth explanatory text in the document? I don't think there's any real
confusion about what Conformance means. Is it a weird gap to leave while
we're updating the document, or does no one think it matters?
On Fri, Jun 30,
On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 2:31 PM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 11:22 AM Todd Herr 40valimail@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> Why is the mechanism called "Domain-based Message Authentication,
>> Reporting, and Conformance" and not "Domain-based Message Authentication,
>>
On 6/30/2023 11:22 AM, Todd Herr wrote:
Why is the mechanism called "Domain-based Message Authentication,
Reporting, and Conformance" and not "Domain-based Message
Authentication, Reporting, and Disposition"?
Say DMARC out loud. Now say DMARD out loud.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
dcroc...@gmail.com
On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 11:22 AM Todd Herr wrote:
> Why is the mechanism called "Domain-based Message Authentication,
> Reporting, and Conformance" and not "Domain-based Message Authentication,
> Reporting, and Disposition"? Perhaps a better question, why is
> "conformance" in the name of the
Genuine curiosity question here for those who were around at the
beginning...
Why is the mechanism called "Domain-based Message Authentication,
Reporting, and Conformance" and not "Domain-based Message Authentication,
Reporting, and Disposition"? Perhaps a better question, why is
"conformance" in
On Fri 30/Jun/2023 04:07:46 +0200 Tero Kivinen wrote:
Alessandro Vesely writes:
[...]
ESPs can provide include files for those who wish otherwise.
I know that some companies in finland has included the iki.fi
IP-addresses ranges to their SPF records, because they had several
complains
Scott, Barry,
as far as I understand, SPF are historic technology, but still have a
reason why to use it. In my opinion (and concerns), it is also necessary
to be aware of the extension of the individual protection methods
provided by senders (amount of domains). This is not a deep analysis.
12 matches
Mail list logo
