On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 10:33 PM OLIVIER HUREAU <
olivier.hur...@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr> wrote:
> >> dmarc-version = "v" equals %s"DMARC1
> > I believe the "%s" should be dropped
>
> 'DMARC1' is case-sensitive in 7489.
> Either we keep the "%s" or we go back to 7489 version : "%x44 %x4d %x41
>
>> dmarc-version = "v" equals %s"DMARC1
> I believe the "%s" should be dropped
'DMARC1' is case-sensitive in 7489.
Either we keep the "%s" or we go back to 7489 version : "%x44 %x4d %x41 %x52
%x43 %x31"
> I think it should be %x20-3A / %x3C-7E
Agreed.
I would also add comment about the
Re-reading section 9.5, I think we should rewrite this to mention the
registry being deprecated.
I open an issue on this
tim
On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 12:00 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> Generally they will leave it and mark Obsolete. This should be called out
> in the RFC.
> (I have not looked
Tim Wicinski skrev den 2024-03-10 00:48:
I agree with Ale here - ADSP was moved to Historic in 2013. Appendix
A.5 should be dropped, and some text in the document should mention
ADSP is historic
bla bla, ADSP is historic as working in spamassassin, see no reason to
remove it, senders can
Just picking over the ABNF with my checks, some Qs
dmarc-version = "v" equals %s"DMARC1
I believe the "%s" should be dropped
dmarc-value = %x20-3A | %x3C-7E
I think it should be %x20-3A / %x3C-7E
and now just something suggested. The comments for URI read like this
I agree with Ale here - ADSP was moved to Historic in 2013. Appendix A.5
should be dropped, and some text in the document should mention ADSP is
historic
On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 10:05 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as ADSP is historical, perhaps we can strike A5 entirely. If not, we
>
Hi,
as ADSP is historical, perhaps we can strike A5 entirely. If not, we
should at least eliminate bullet 5:
5. ADSP has no support for a slow rollout, i.e., no way to configure
a percentage of email on which the Mail Receiver should apply the
policy. This is important for
Hi,
this is section 11.4, Display Name Attacks. It has:
From: "u...@example.org via Bug Tracker" supp...@example.com
(mailto:supp...@example.com)
Should be:
From: "u...@example.org via Bug Tracker"
(mailto:supp...@example.com)
Or even
From: " via Bug Tracker"
On 08/03/2024 18:45, Hector Santos wrote:
I believe it is correct, SHOULD strive to trusted known sources. The final
mechanism SHOULD be one of (hard) failure. This is what we (ideally) strive
for. I believe anything weaker is a waste of computational resources, causes
confusion using
