On Friday, April 28, 2023 3:57:55 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Fri 28/Apr/2023 05:14:16 +0200 Jesse Thompson wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 9:54 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >> On April 28, 2023 2:49:48 AM UTC, Jesse Thompson
wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 9:40 PM, Jesse
On Thu 27/Apr/2023 22:49:31 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On April 27, 2023 4:02:32 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Wed 26/Apr/2023 13:21:33 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On April 26, 2023 8:08:39 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Tue 25/Apr/2023 20:27:18 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Fri 28/Apr/2023 05:14:16 +0200 Jesse Thompson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 9:54 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On April 28, 2023 2:49:48 AM UTC, Jesse Thompson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 9:40 PM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 10:44 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Also,
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 9:54 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>
> On April 28, 2023 2:49:48 AM UTC, Jesse Thompson wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 9:40 PM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 10:44 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> >>> Also, state that serious consideration
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 9:52 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>
> On April 28, 2023 2:25:57 AM UTC, Jesse Thompson wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 9:30 AM, Brotman, Alex wrote:
> >> Attempt to make it a tad more concise (I think), altering some of the
> >> language:
> >>
> >>
On April 28, 2023 2:49:48 AM UTC, Jesse Thompson wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 9:40 PM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 10:44 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>>> Also, state that serious consideration includes testing p=quarantine;
>>> pct=0^H t=y.
>>
>> I was going to say
On April 28, 2023 2:25:57 AM UTC, Jesse Thompson wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 9:30 AM, Brotman, Alex wrote:
>> Attempt to make it a tad more concise (I think), altering some of the
>> language:
>>
>> -
>> There can be inherent damage to the ability to use certain
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 9:40 PM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 10:44 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> Also, state that serious consideration includes testing p=quarantine;
>> pct=0^H t=y.
>
> I was going to say something similar but I think that it is implied by
> section A.7
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 10:44 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> Also, state that serious consideration includes testing p=quarantine; pct=0^H
> t=y.
I was going to say something similar but I think that it is implied by section
A.7
Jesse
___
dmarc
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 9:30 AM, Brotman, Alex wrote:
> Attempt to make it a tad more concise (I think), altering some of the
> language:
>
> -
> There can be inherent damage to the ability to use certain SMTP-based systems
> in conjunction with a policy of quarantine or
On April 27, 2023 4:02:32 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>On Wed 26/Apr/2023 13:21:33 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On April 26, 2023 8:08:39 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>>> On Tue 25/Apr/2023 20:27:18 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
My recollection is that a general formulation
On Wed 26/Apr/2023 13:21:33 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On April 26, 2023 8:08:39 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Tue 25/Apr/2023 20:27:18 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
My recollection is that a general formulation that I proposed had at least
some traction out of both groups:
[some
On Thu 27/Apr/2023 16:30:14 +0200 Brotman, Alex wrote:
Attempt to make it a tad more concise (I think), altering some of the language:
-
There can be inherent damage to the ability to use certain SMTP-based systems
in conjunction with a policy of quarantine or reject.
Attempt to make it a tad more concise (I think), altering some of the language:
-
There can be inherent damage to the ability to use certain SMTP-based systems
in conjunction with a policy of quarantine or reject. These could include,
though are not limited to, mailing
On 4/26/2023 11:51 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I agree that more will be needed. Thanks for the feedback. The last run at
this question ended up being a mess, so I'm trying to see if we can get further
by going in small steps.
Scott,
I provided some suggested text below of what I think,
On April 27, 2023 2:32:49 AM UTC, Jim Fenton wrote:
>On 26 Apr 2023, at 9:06, John Levine wrote:
>
>> It seems to me there are two somewhat different kinds of DMARC damange
>> that we might separate. One is what happens on discussion lists, where
>> messages get lost and in the process
On 26 Apr 2023, at 9:06, John Levine wrote:
> It seems to me there are two somewhat different kinds of DMARC damange
> that we might separate. One is what happens on discussion lists, where
> messages get lost and in the process unrelated recipients get
> unsubscribed. The other is simple
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023, at 5:47 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On April 26, 2023 9:39:08 PM UTC, Jesse Thompson wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 26, 2023, at 11:06 AM, John Levine wrote:
> >> It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
> >> >>Domains owners who have users who individually request 3rd parties to
>
On April 26, 2023 9:39:08 PM UTC, Jesse Thompson wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 26, 2023, at 11:06 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
>> >>Domains owners who have users who individually request 3rd parties to emit
>> >>mail as an address within the domain MUST NOT publish
On April 26, 2023 9:52:29 PM UTC, Jesse Thompson wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 26, 2023, at 6:21 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>
>>
>> On April 26, 2023 8:08:39 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> >On Tue 25/Apr/2023 20:27:18 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> >> My recollection is that a general
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023, at 6:21 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>
> On April 26, 2023 8:08:39 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> >On Tue 25/Apr/2023 20:27:18 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >> My recollection is that a general formulation that I proposed had at least
> >> some traction out of both
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023, at 11:06 AM, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
> >>Domains owners who have users who individually request 3rd parties to emit
> >>mail as an address within the domain MUST NOT publish a
> >restrictive DMARC policy if they wish to support their
It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
>>Domains owners who have users who individually request 3rd parties to emit
>>mail as an address within the domain MUST NOT publish a
>restrictive DMARC policy if they wish to support their users' usage of any
>potential 3rd party. Examples of 3rd parties
On April 26, 2023 3:24:58 PM UTC, Hector Santos
wrote:
>
>
>On 4/26/2023 7:21 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On April 26, 2023 8:08:39 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>>> On Tue 25/Apr/2023 20:27:18 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
My recollection is that a general formulation that I
On 4/26/2023 7:21 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On April 26, 2023 8:08:39 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Tue 25/Apr/2023 20:27:18 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
My recollection is that a general formulation that I proposed had at least
some traction out of both groups:
[some appropriate
On April 26, 2023 8:08:39 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>On Tue 25/Apr/2023 20:27:18 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> My recollection is that a general formulation that I proposed had at least
>> some traction out of both groups:
>>
>>> [some appropriate description] domains MUST NOT
On Tue 25/Apr/2023 20:27:18 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
My recollection is that a general formulation that I proposed had at least
some traction out of both groups:
[some appropriate description] domains MUST NOT publish restrictive DMARC
policies due to interoperability issues
Leaving
On April 26, 2023 2:50:16 AM UTC, Hector Santos
wrote:
>On 4/25/2023 10:06 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On April 26, 2023 1:47:14 AM UTC, Hector Santos wrote:
>>> On 4/25/2023 9:06 PM, John Levine wrote:
PS: If anyone was going to suggest we just tell people how to change
their
On April 26, 2023 2:23:52 AM UTC, Jesse Thompson wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 25, 2023, at 8:06 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
>> >My recollection is that a general formulation that I proposed had at least
>> >some traction out of both groups:
>> >
>> >> [some
On 4/25/2023 10:06 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On April 26, 2023 1:47:14 AM UTC, Hector Santos wrote:
On 4/25/2023 9:06 PM, John Levine wrote:
PS: If anyone was going to suggest we just tell people how to change
their mailing lists to work around DMARC, don't go there.
I don't follow.
A "no
On Tue, Apr 25, 2023, at 8:06 PM, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
> >My recollection is that a general formulation that I proposed had at least
> >some traction out of both groups:
> >
> >> [some appropriate description] domains MUST NOT publish restrictive DMARC
> >>
On April 26, 2023 1:47:14 AM UTC, Hector Santos
wrote:
>On 4/25/2023 9:06 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
>>> My recollection is that a general formulation that I proposed had at least
>>> some traction out of both groups:
>>>
[some appropriate
On 4/25/2023 9:06 PM, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
My recollection is that a general formulation that I proposed had at least
some traction out of both groups:
[some appropriate description] domains MUST NOT publish restrictive DMARC
policies due to
It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
>My recollection is that a general formulation that I proposed had at least
>some traction out of both groups:
>
>> [some appropriate description] domains MUST NOT publish restrictive DMARC
>> policies due to interoperability issues
This seems like a
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 4:15:04 AM EDT Barry Leiba wrote:
> I raised this issue in the DMARC session in Vienna, and have let it
> sit for a while so as not to derail other discussion. As we're pretty
> close to finished with the DMARCbis document, I'd like to raise it
> again, this time with
35 matches
Mail list logo
