Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

Scott Kitterman wrote: >> 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

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

Andrew, > Nothin' for nothin', but this seems like an awful lot of mechanism for > a pretty low-value piece of data, and if I'm reading you right the > people who have to implement this (at least mailing list operators) > need to do this so that someone _else's_ use of DMARC works, right? I

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

On 2015-10-27 00:30, Andrew Sullivan via dmarc-discuss wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:22:46PM -0700, Shal Farley via dmarc-discuss wro> By itself though the identification is not enough - it doesn't tell the receiver that the claim is false; the receiver must independently assess the