Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC session at IETF 118

2023-10-30 Thread Hector Santos
Hi Barry, We not both?  A robust discussion on the mailing list coupled with a dedicated session at IETF 118. This issue has deep implications for everyone from small businesses to the large players in domain hosting like Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo. While these major players hold a

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis way forward: Do we need our session at IETF 118

2023-10-30 Thread Douglas Foster
On a theoretical level, probabilistic tools like spam assassin will be predictably wrong some of the time. Accurate disposition requires audits and overrides using static rules based on confirmed evidence. I cannot find much sympathy for sites that enforce SPF without considering DKIM and

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis way forward: Do we need our session at IETF 118

2023-10-30 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On Sun 29/Oct/2023 21:03:17 +0100 Mark Alley wrote: Giving this some more thought from the opposite point of view... the benefits to an auth=DKIM method in DMARC itself would remove the need for domain owners to do SPF tinkering for any upgrade mitigation, and shared mail infrastructure where

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC session at IETF 118

2023-10-30 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On Sat 28/Oct/2023 19:38:00 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote: Or shall I cancel the 118 session and just let the discussion continue on the mailing list? Cancel. All facets of auth= have been brought up already, methinks. We could hum on list. Best Ale --