> On Mar 15, 2024, at 9:40 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>
> On Fri 15/Mar/2024 02:34:15 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 9:11 AM John Levine wrote:
>>> It appears that Todd Herr said:
>>> >I agree that clarifying it can't hurt, obviously, ...
>>>
>>> I
On Fri 15/Mar/2024 02:34:15 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 9:11 AM John Levine wrote:
It appears that Todd Herr said:
>I agree that clarifying it can't hurt, obviously, ...
I disagree, it does hurt.
If we say you're allowed to use CNAMEs to point to DMARC
Doug, since of dawn of electronic messaging, a system local policy always
prevails. When implementing the new SMTP filters such as SPF, the more powerful
policy was one of detecting failure. The PASS meant nothing since it may not
pre-empt any other checking. For us, wcSPF was the exception
On Friday, March 15, 2024 10:15:55 AM EDT Todd Herr wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 1:47 AM Douglas Foster <
>
> dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > DMARC is an imperfect tool, as evidenced by the mailing list problem,
> > among others. DMARCbis has failed to integrate RFC7489 with
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 1:47 AM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> DMARC is an imperfect tool, as evidenced by the mailing list problem,
> among others. DMARCbis has failed to integrate RFC7489 with RFC 7960,
> because it provides no discussion of the circumstances
On Thu 14/Mar/2024 20:23:01 +0100 John Levine wrote:
It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
SPF it treated in multiple places. We cannot warn against a bad practice in
one place (135) and recommend it unconditionally in another (132).
That is exactly how one handles Security Considerations.
