It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy said:
>This is intentional. DKIM also isn't specific about how a passing or
>failing signature is to be interpreted, especially since DKIM can fail for
>lots of otherwise legitimate reasons, for example.
You are right that it says nothing about how to
Start with the underlying objective:
Evaluators SHOULD accept mailing list traffic.
Google's requirement: Given whatever standards-track DMARCbis rules we
produce, these rules MUST be something that can be fully automated.
Consequently, the problem remains: How does an evaluator distinguish
Still no hat on.
I can see the compromise in language that's been proposed here, and I
appreciate the effort by the chairs.
Two things I'd like to raise. First:
On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 7:55 AM Barry Leiba wrote:
> It is therefore critical that domains that host users who might
>
On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 9:00 AM Marcello
wrote:
> Just to clarify, is it possible having this “bad” ARC header is skewing
> the final spam score of the email when it hits the final email service
> provider ?
>
Yes, it's possible. Or rather, it's impossible to know how the end
receiver is or is
On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 8:21 AM Barry Leiba wrote:
> > For clarity: When you say, "AD will call consensus on this issue", you
> mean after the results of the discussion
> > are brought to the list and reviewed by the working group, not at the
> meeting, right?
>
> Yes, correct. I wanted to make
I do like your suggestion of silent discard rather than bounce, and I
would want to see that change made -- perhaps with a note that
aggregate reports will still include information about those discards.
Having thought about it for a minute, I have a better question.
We already know that sites
On Friday, July 7, 2023 3:18:29 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Thu 06/Jul/2023 21:01:48 +0200 internet-drafts wrote:
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> > directories. This Internet-Draft is a work item of the Domain-based
> > Message
> > Authentication,
Doesn't sieve happen during delivery, after the message has been accepted? Is
so, I don't think it's a useful comparison to make.
The lack of bounce/rejection messages results in messages that vanish and
undermines the reliability of the email ecosystem. I agree that silent discard
between
It's not a question of the bounces being annoying: it's a question of
the bounces harming mailing list operation by causing unsubscribes.
Given the choice of "breaking 5321" (which I don't buy, as Sieve
already has a silent discard option, for example) and "breaking normal
mailing list operation",
Barry,
I did a quick review and comparison for changes.
Overall, it appears this document is more clear in key specific areas but also
more complex. At this point, DMARCbis is about Local Policy, System
Administrative choices and suggested guidelines, codified and/or new. As such,
I
It appears that Barry Leiba said:
>I, too, prefer MUST to SHOULD there, but it was clear to me that we
>will not reach rough consensus on MUST, but that we can reach rough
>consensus on SHOULD.
>
>I do like your suggestion of silent discard rather than bounce, and I
>would want to see that
I, too, prefer MUST to SHOULD there, but it was clear to me that we
will not reach rough consensus on MUST, but that we can reach rough
consensus on SHOULD.
I do like your suggestion of silent discard rather than bounce, and I
would want to see that change made -- perhaps with a note that
Baptiste,
Your comments assume uniform agreement that mailing lists have no role in
the problem or it's solution. I do not agree.
Malicious impersonation creates a need for authentication. If the list
makes changes that disable the originator's authentication, then it is the
list's problem to
Hi,
I consider this a step backwards. The MUST requirement on the author
domain finally made it clear, after a lost decade, *who* is responsible
for solving the breakage of indirect mailflows. Problem solving starts
with acknowledging one's responsibilities.
This proposal goes back to a muddy
Barry, in my previous note, I used MTA generically, but was particularly
thinking of forwarders. I assume that senders and their outbound filtering
services will be smart enough to not undermine their own signatures.
I have tried unsuccessfully to accept your assertion that a forwarder is
not a
On Thu 06/Jul/2023 21:01:48 +0200 internet-drafts wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories. This Internet-Draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message
Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (DMARC) WG of the IETF.
Title :
16 matches
Mail list logo
