On 4/14/2023 7:43 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Thu 13/Apr/2023 18:01:40 +0200 John R Levine wrote:
In ADSP I made the equivalent policy "discardable" to reinforce
this point. My co-authors weren't happy about it, but they
couldn't disagree.
ADSP was different from DMARC.
ADSP
On Thu 13/Apr/2023 17:21:30 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote:
Anyone who does forwarding is damaged by DMARC because there are a lot of
people who do DMARC on the cheap with SPF only.
This brings up another issue, I think: that there should also be
stronger advice that using DKIM is critical to DMARC
On Thu 13/Apr/2023 18:01:40 +0200 John R Levine wrote:
I'm trying to figure out where best to say this, but when you say p=reject, you
are saying your mail is *not* important, and if there is any doubt about it,
you want recipients to throw it away, even though some of your real mail will
> On Apr 13, 2023, at 3:13 PM, Hector Santos
> wrote:
>
> On 4/13/2023 11:21 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>> Anyone who does forwarding is damaged by DMARC because there are a lot of
>>> people who do DMARC on the cheap with SPF only.
>> This brings up another issue, I think: that there should also
I didn’t we need to mention the type of people, organization, etc.
“This is particularly important because SPF will always fail in situations
where mail is forwarded.”
The issue applies to all.
> On Apr 13, 2023, at 12:04 PM, Todd Herr
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 11:21 AM Barry
On 4/13/2023 11:21 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
Anyone who does forwarding is damaged by DMARC because there are a lot of
people who do DMARC on the cheap with SPF only.
This brings up another issue, I think: that there should also be
stronger advice that using DKIM is critical to DMARC reliability,
I’ve talked about this before. I ran into a utility company that I conversed
with that explicitly didn’t want to use DKIM because they felt their messages
should not be forwarded to another provider. I didn’t quite understand the
logic, but it was their decision.
I believe it, but needless
4 PM
To: Dotzero
Cc: Todd Herr ; John Levine ;
dmarc@ietf.org; superu...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling forwarders, not just MLMs
We can say that as well, but I want to specifically say "don't use SPF without
DKIM and expect it to work right;"
b
On Thu, Apr 13, 20
We can say that as well, but I want to specifically say "don't use SPF
without DKIM and expect it to work right;"
b
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 12:41 PM Dotzero wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 12:19 PM Barry Leiba
> wrote:
>
>> Maybe just add a sentence to the end of the second paragraph:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 12:19 PM Barry Leiba
wrote:
> Maybe just add a sentence to the end of the second paragraph:
>
>The use of SPF alone, without DKIM, is strongly NOT RECOMMENDED.
>
> Barry
>
I think the opposite. Something along the lines of "Sending domains SHOULD
implement both SPF
Maybe just add a sentence to the end of the second paragraph:
The use of SPF alone, without DKIM, is strongly NOT RECOMMENDED.
Barry
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 12:04 PM Todd Herr wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 11:21 AM Barry Leiba
> wrote:
>
>> > Anyone who does forwarding is damaged by
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 11:21 AM Barry Leiba
wrote:
> > Anyone who does forwarding is damaged by DMARC because there are a lot of
> > people who do DMARC on the cheap with SPF only.
>
> This brings up another issue, I think: that there should also be
> stronger advice that using DKIM is critical
Anyone who does forwarding is damaged by DMARC because there are a lot of
people who do DMARC on the cheap with SPF only.
This brings up another issue, I think: that there should also be
stronger advice that using DKIM is critical to DMARC reliability, and
using SPF only, without DKIM, is
+1
On 4/13/2023 10:21 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
Anyone who does forwarding is damaged by DMARC because there are a lot of
people who do DMARC on the cheap with SPF only.
This brings up another issue, I think: that there should also be
stronger advice that using DKIM is critical to DMARC
> Anyone who does forwarding is damaged by DMARC because there are a lot of
> people who do DMARC on the cheap with SPF only.
This brings up another issue, I think: that there should also be
stronger advice that using DKIM is critical to DMARC reliability, and
using SPF only, without DKIM, is
It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy said:
>And a good example, given it's the most obvious one. But is it enough to
>say that and nothing else? What about MLMs actually doing something like
>this?
MLMs get all the attention but please remember my lost census mail example.
Anyone who does
16 matches
Mail list logo
