+1
With 5617 was the DKIM=ALL policy - anyone can sign. Offered no authorization
protection.
dkim=discardable offers 1st party signaing protection — just like DMARC offers.
Both failed in validating the 3rd party signer.
All the best,
Hector Santos
> On Feb 8, 2024, at 11:26 AM, Jim
On 6 Feb 2024, at 14:47, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 2:33 AM Jeroen Massar 40massar...@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> `req=dkim`: requires DKIM, messages not properly signed are then to be
>> rejected/quarantined based on 'p' policy.
>>
>
> This sounds like what RFC 5617
Together with DMARC p=none as DKIM signature-presence is ignored and thus
any email can pass.
I don't understand.
Me neither. I still don't see any reason to revisit this issue. Nothing
has changed since the last time we argued about it.
R's,
John
PS:
About RFC 5617
At that time,
On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 2:31 AM Jeroen Massar wrote:
> > Uh, no. ~all is a soft fail.
>
> Together with DMARC p=none as DKIM signature-presence is ignored and thus
> any email can pass.
>
I don't understand.
> It is not about 'trusting SPF' it is about indicating that when a DKIM
> Signature
On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 5:32 AM Jeroen Massar wrote:
> [multiple responses aggregated]
>
> > On 6 Feb 2024, at 22:22, John R. Levine wrote:
> >
> >>> Unless something important has changed since the last time we took up
> >>> and rejected this idea, I don't think we need to discuss it further.
>
[multiple responses aggregated]
> On 6 Feb 2024, at 22:22, John R. Levine wrote:
>
>>> Unless something important has changed since the last time we took up
>>> and rejected this idea, I don't think we need to discuss it further.
>>
>> Is the reasoning documented? I have checked the list
On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 2:33 AM Jeroen Massar wrote:
> `req=dkim`: requires DKIM, messages not properly signed are then to be
> rejected/quarantined based on 'p' policy.
>
This sounds like what RFC 5617 tried to do, minus the constraint that the
signing domain be equal to the author domain,
On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 3:26 PM Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
>
> > On 6 Feb 2024, at 20:52, John Levine wrote:
> >
> > It appears that Jeroen Massar said:
> >> Hi Folks,
> >>
> >> As DMARCbis is being updated, I would like to suggest a new tag
> `required` shorted to `req`.
> >>
> >> ```
> >>
> On 6 Feb 2024, at 20:52, John Levine wrote:
>
> It appears that Jeroen Massar said:
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> As DMARCbis is being updated, I would like to suggest a new tag `required`
>> shorted to `req`.
>>
>> ```
>> `req=dkim`: requires DKIM, messages not properly signed are then to be
>>
It appears that Jeroen Massar said:
>Hi Folks,
>
>As DMARCbis is being updated, I would like to suggest a new tag `required`
>shorted to `req`.
>
>```
>`req=dkim`: requires DKIM, messages not properly signed are then to be
>rejected/quarantined based on 'p' policy.
>
>The tag should allow
Hi Folks,
As DMARCbis is being updated, I would like to suggest a new tag `required`
shorted to `req`.
```
`req=dkim`: requires DKIM, messages not properly signed are then to be
rejected/quarantined based on 'p' policy.
The tag should allow future expansion by requiring multiple mechanisms to
11 matches
Mail list logo
