Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 132 - 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 SHOULD vs MUST (was Another point for SPF advice)

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.

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 132 - 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 SHOULD vs MUST (was Another point for SPF advice)

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 4:52 PM Hector Santos wrote: > > On Mar 14, 2024, at 4:02 PM, Todd Herr 40valimail@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 3:25 PM Hector Santos 40isdg@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> On Mar 14, 2024, at 10:09 AM, Todd Herr >

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 132 - 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 SHOULD vs MUST (was Another point for SPF advice)

> On Mar 14, 2024, at 4:02 PM, Todd Herr > wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 3:25 PM Hector Santos > mailto:40isdg@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: >>> On Mar 14, 2024, at 10:09 AM, Todd Herr >>> >> > wrote: >>> To configure SPF for DMARC, the Domain Owner

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 132 - 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 SHOULD vs MUST (was Another point for SPF advice)

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 3:25 PM Hector Santos wrote: > On Mar 14, 2024, at 10:09 AM, Todd Herr 40valimail@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > To configure SPF for DMARC, the Domain Owner MUST choose a domain to use > as the RFC5321.MailFrom domain (i.e., the Return-Path domain) for its mail > that

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 132 - 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 SHOULD vs MUST (was Another point for SPF advice)

> On Mar 14, 2024, at 10:09 AM, Todd Herr > wrote: > > > In the ticket, I propose the following replacement text: > > == > Because DMARC relies on SPF [[RFC7208]] and DKIM [[RFC6376], in order to take > full advantage of DMARC, a Domain Owner

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 132 - 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 SHOULD vs MUST (was Another point for SPF advice)

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. So 132 says do SPF. >Security Considerations

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 132 - 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 SHOULD vs MUST (was Another point for SPF advice)

On Thursday, March 14, 2024 1:59:58 PM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On Thu 14/Mar/2024 18:35:05 +0100 Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Thursday, March 14, 2024 11:27:03 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote: > >> On Thu 14/Mar/2024 15:09:37 +0100 Todd Herr wrote: > >>> [...] > >>> > >>> In the ticket, I

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 132 - 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 SHOULD vs MUST (was Another point for SPF advice)

On Thu 14/Mar/2024 18:35:05 +0100 Scott Kitterman wrote: On Thursday, March 14, 2024 11:27:03 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote: On Thu 14/Mar/2024 15:09:37 +0100 Todd Herr wrote: [...] In the ticket, I propose the following replacement text: ==

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 132 - 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 SHOULD vs MUST (was Another point for SPF advice)

On Thursday, March 14, 2024 11:27:03 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On Thu 14/Mar/2024 15:09:37 +0100 Todd Herr wrote: > > [...] > > > > In the ticket, I propose the following replacement text: > > > > == > > Because DMARC relies on SPF

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 132 - 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 SHOULD vs MUST (was Another point for SPF advice)

On Thu 14/Mar/2024 15:09:37 +0100 Todd Herr wrote: [...] In the ticket, I propose the following replacement text: == Because DMARC relies on SPF [[RFC7208]] and DKIM [[RFC6376], in order to take full advantage of DMARC, a Domain Owner MUST first

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 132 - 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 SHOULD vs MUST (was Another point for SPF advice)

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:22 AM Scott Kitterman wrote: > > I think MUST do SPF or DKIM, SHOULD do SPF, to do SPF MUST do xxx, SHOULD > do > DKIM, to do DKIM MUST do yyy is reasonable (that's how I parsed your > proposed > changes, is that right?). I think it's an improvement and assuming I am

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 132 - 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 SHOULD vs MUST (was Another point for SPF advice)

On Thursday, March 14, 2024 10:09:37 AM EDT Todd Herr wrote: > Colleagues, > > After reviewing the "Another point SPF advice" thread and Murray's separate > post re: SHOULD vs. MUST, I have opened issue 132 on the topic: > > The current text of section 5.5.1, Publish and SPF Policy for an

[dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 132 - 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 SHOULD vs MUST (was Another point for SPF advice)

Colleagues, After reviewing the "Another point SPF advice" thread and Murray's separate post re: SHOULD vs. MUST, I have opened issue 132 on the topic: The current text of section 5.5.1, Publish and SPF Policy for an Aligned Domain, reads: ==