Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

Shal wrote: > Roland wrote: > >> - Forwarders who are large enough to be monitoring deliverability can >> trivially determine whether their ARC-signing is being successfully >> validated and/or when receivers trust them enough to accept messages >> despite failing DMARC. > > I see how that is

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

Roland wrote: > - Forwarders who are large enough to be monitoring deliverability can > trivially determine whether their ARC-signing is being successfully > validated and/or when receivers trust them enough to accept messages > despite failing DMARC. I see how that is possible when the

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

Scott Kitterman wrote: > Okay. If I implement ARC as a receiver, then I ignore p=reject > from Senders I trust not to lie to me if it passes ARC? p=reject is asserted by Domain Owners, whether or not they're senders. This is orthogonal to ARC's interest in forwarders. The situation in which to

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

Scott Kitterman wrote: > On October 23, 2015 1:48:13 AM EDT, Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss > wrote: >>The question is not who you trust - ARC doesn't directly change that - >>but how you reliably automate determining whether the message was >>forwarded only by people

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

Shal wrote: > Although I think ARC is a step forward, I think it still leaves list > managers with a bit of a conundrum, at least in the near and moderate > term: at what point does it make sense for the list service to invest > the effort in implementing ARC processing? There are multiple

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

On Monday, October 26, 2015 7:52 AM [GMT+1=CET], Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss wrote: > J. Gomez wrote: > > > How do you know the sender is trustworthy, if the email > > he sends is failing a DMARC check? > > This question is an operational one that is out of scope for a > protocol

[dmarc-discuss] Reminder: Yahoo DMARC policy update on Nov 2nd

| | || | | | Dear DMARC.org members, This is a reminder that on Monday, Nov 2nd, 2015 (1 week from today), Yahoo Mail will switch to a p=reject DMARC policy for ymail.com and rocketmail.com domains. Please make any changes you need to handle emails from those domains the same

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

On October 26, 2015 9:12:17 AM EDT, Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss wrote: >Scott Kitterman wrote: ... snipped down to one bit as we seem to mostly be going around in circles ... >> As a domain owner, I can control what sources of mail are able to >> generate mail that

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

> -Original Message- > From: dmarc-discuss [mailto:dmarc-discuss-boun...@dmarc.org] On Behalf > Of Scott Kitterman via dmarc-discuss > Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 8:04 AM > To: dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org > Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet? > > On Monday, October 26, 2015

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

On Monday, October 26, 2015 06:47:33 AM Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss wrote: > Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On October 23, 2015 1:48:13 AM EDT, Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss wrote: > >>The question is not who you trust - ARC doesn't directly change that - > >>but how

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Monday, October 26, 2015 06:47:33 AM Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss wrote: >> Scott Kitterman wrote: >> > I don't see why the signing domain of the DKIM signature that could be >> > added by the most recent sender doesn't already give an identifier to use >> > to