[dmarc-discuss] Slightly OT: New ARC logo to celebrate RFC8617

You may have noticed the logo with the seal mascot that the ARC project has been using for years. To celebrate the ARC protocol being published as RFC8617, we updated the logo - and have now published it on the arc-spec.org website. See both logos here: http://arc-spec.org/?p=185 If you're at

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Know anyone working on ARC at Microsoft ?

On 01/02/2020 09:53, Seth Blank via dmarc-discuss wrote: Currently, AFAIK Microsoft's ARC implementation is internal only and is not yet expected to interoperate with external systems. I'm happy to provide them with a New Year's reminder that people are watching. :-) But yes, it's also

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Know anyone working on ARC at Microsoft ?

On 01/01/2020 17:51, John Levine via dmarc-discuss wrote: I that I am getting a fair number of messages from outlook.com servers with ARC headers, which is good. ... Any idea who we might talk to in order to figure out what's going on? Yes, I can contact somebody at Microsoft who's in the

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Re-verifying external report destinations

This has been a bit of a problem, as non-verification of “ruf” addresses combined with people copying sample DMARC records in their deployments led to what I have to assume are violations of GDPR and several other privacy regimes. I would hope people would see reporting address verification as

Re: [dmarc-discuss] DMARC RUF

On 05/11/2019 08:34, John Levine via dmarc-discuss wrote: In article you write: Can someone tell me why the mail providers have stopped sending forensic emails? They haven't stopped because they never started. I received failure/forensic reports ("ruf=") from NetEase and Hotmail for

Re: [dmarc-discuss] dmarc Newbie

On 5/9/19 10:55 AM, Wojtowicz, Andrew via dmarc-discuss wrote: > > I’m a newbie with dmarc.  I’ve been playing around with some > generators and I thought I had it setup right but found out today one > of my staff members sent out an notification email, that uses > blackboard, and it didn’t go to

Re: [dmarc-discuss] DMARC is not working

On 11/23/2018 00:01, Dpto Ciberseguridad via dmarc-discuss wrote: Hello, Last year we configured DMARC registry for another company with something like this "v=DMARC1;p=reject;ruc=mailto:dmarc@x; It worked fine till last month when testing emails, we saw it was not rejecting

[dmarc-discuss] ARC WGLC - last comments on August 3rd (list test)

A list member requested confirmation that this list was still working. But I will take the opportunity to point out to any interested members who don't follow the IETF DMARC Working Group, that this group had the "Last Call" for comments about the ARC protocol specification, then at version

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Dmarctest

On 06/26/2018 03:36, Keith Duthie via dmarc-discuss wrote: Who runs the dmarctest.org message reflector? It seems to have been broken for at least the last couple of days - my messages have been being rejected with a "451 4.1.8 Domain of sender address ke...@no.net.nz

Re: [dmarc-discuss] DMARC Reporting De-duplication

On 05/04/2018 12:37 PM, Scott Kitterman via dmarc-discuss wrote: I participate in a lot of mailing lists many of which that have a large number of subscribers. ... Shouldn't it be possible to de-duplicate these based on message ID before sending aggregate reports back? Can/should this be

[dmarc-discuss] Remote Participation for IETF DMARC WG meeting on Thursday, 7/20

Here are the links for the DMARC Working Group session at the IETF 99 meeting in Prague. For reference, noon here is 06:00 (AM) in New York. The DMARC session is at 09:30 CET, or 03:30 EDT, or 00:30 PDT, and is scheduled to run up to one hour. It will be followed by the DKIM Crypto Update WG,

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Get failure reports without actually rejecting messages?

Hi Jonathan, > After further research, I think this is because failure reports aren't > actually generated for p=none, i.e., they're only generated for p=reject. There is no such linkage. I see failure reports for domains that publish "p=none" all the time. However (unfortunately) I don't get

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Why do I receive RUAs for emails that align?

On 01/27/2017 04:23 AM, Jim Popovitch via dmarc-discuss wrote: > > I can appreciate that folks do that, and that's awesome. For me and > my systems that just seems like unnecessary overkill. Ultimately that's a decision each domain owner/operator has to make for themselves. But I would hope

Re: [dmarc-discuss] RUF reports

On 01/05/2017 17:32, Jim Popovitch via dmarc-discuss wrote: > I've been trying, albeit slowly, to determine why I haven't seen any > RUF reports since Sept 2016. > > Shouldn't this RUA report also produce a corresponding RUF? Are you DKIM signing these messages? Because I notice the reason given

Re: [dmarc-discuss] DMARC forensic reporting options

On 12/23/2016 08:10, John Comfort via dmarc-discuss wrote: > Maybe it is time to rethink this, or open a more official dialogue. I > understand folks don't want to send reports. I understand the privacy > issue. However, without these reports, or at least *some* information > sent regarding the

Re: [dmarc-discuss] gmail's DMARC check doesn't respect subdomain policy

On 12/12/2016 02:35, Petr Novák via dmarc-discuss wrote: > > I actually used "p=reject sp=none" on one domain for a while. The > problem was I managed mail server for the main domain but I didnt have > access to any of the subdomains. It took some time to find out which > subdomains are used for

[dmarc-discuss] DMARC reporting service for receivers (commercial)

ReturnPath (a sponsor of DMARC.org) now has a service where they will handle DMARC reporting functions for a mail receiver or mailbox provider. They currently take a feed of authentication log data from a Cloudmark instance, but other sources can be adapted. The cloud-based system will not only

Re: [dmarc-discuss] FortiNet’s FortiMail DMARC implementation

On 11/14/2016 10:33, Terry Zink via dmarc-discuss wrote: > In my experience, domains sit on p=none for a long time, and in the meantime > a lot of other senders send email as them - most legitimate but some > malicious. This setting is designed to catch the malicious. Maybe I need to make that

Re: [dmarc-discuss] FortiNet’s FortiMail DMARC implementation

On 11/14/2016 06:49, Petr Novák via dmarc-discuss wrote: > > If you enable DMARC check in FortiMail it rejects(or performs other > configured action) any mail that fails DMARC check no matter what > policy source domain has configured. So it also rejects mails from > domains that have policy

[dmarc-discuss] Report sizes and transports, was Re: Beware of the size limit in DMARC URIs

On 10/13/16 10:53, John Levine wrote: > It's a poor idea to put stuff into a spec if nobody's planning to > implement it, because that generally results in a spec that doesn't > work when someone tries later. I take your point, but I understood anecdotally that the large end of the range of

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Beware of the size limit in DMARC URIs

On 10/12/16 03:17, Steven M Jones via dmarc-discuss wrote: > On 10/12/16 02:00, Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss wrote: >> >> Consider https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc> >> > > +1. Let me clarify a bit

[dmarc-discuss] ARC Interoperability testing this Friday, 9/23

Have an implementation of the ARC protocol? We will be holding an interoperability testing event this Friday, 9/23, between 9 and 11:30AM Pacific (Noon and 2:30PM Eastern). Several different implementations will be available for testing with each other, and remote participation is the norm (versus

Re: [dmarc-discuss] ARC adoption

+ dm...@ietf.org because Roland's responses should be considered/captured there too. Additional comment bottom-posted. On 6/29/16 12:09 AM, Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss wrote: Andreas Schulze wrote: 2) a general point I'm still unsure about:

Re: [dmarc-discuss] ARC adoption

+ dm...@ietf.org list to capture for ARC discussion/archive On 06/28/2016 09:12, A. Schulze via dmarc-discuss wrote: > > Kurt just mention adoption in his last message. > Adoption is a good point, I've two questions: > > 1) > are there implementation available as open source? There is an

[dmarc-discuss] Overview Slides on ARC Available Online

An overview of the ARC protocol has been presented to a couple audiences, and after a few updates is now available online. It's released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, so you're free to use it, or parts of it, for most purposes. I hope it makes ARC and it's mechanisms a

[dmarc-discuss] Deferring virtual ARC interop by a week: now April 8th

Given the changes in signing mechanics being discussed on the arc-discuss list recently, I'm moving the next round of ARC interoperability tests to Friday, April 8th. I think the discussion is valuable, and agree it would be best to give a little more time so any necessary changes to working code

[dmarc-discuss] Semi-OT: Next ARC Interop Testing: April 1st

We'll be holding another interoperability & testing session for ARC on Friday, April 1st. This will be a "virtual" session coordinated via online conference, from 10AM Pacific / 1PM Eastern through 1PM Pacific / 4PM Eastern. This is intended for ARC implementers who have code to test, doesn't

[dmarc-discuss] Two ARC implementations tested at interoperability event

On February 19th AOL and Google successfully tested their implementations of ARC at the interoperability event held on February 19th. More details here: https://dmarc.org/2016/03/two-arc-implementations-tested-at-interoperability-event/ Many thanks to LinkedIn for hosting the event. I'm

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Email storage

On 02/16/2016 08:31, jim c via dmarc-discuss wrote: > > > The issue that we've noticed is that the forensic data is the entirety > of the email. It isn't just header info, but contains the entire > message text, along with attachments. Not every Receiver generates failure reports (what "ruf="

[dmarc-discuss] ARC interoperability testing day: Friday, Feb 19th

I'd like to share a reminder with this list about an upcoming. related event. Follow-ups may be more appropriate on the arc-discuss list. See http://lists.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/arc-discuss for details of that list; see http://arc-spec.org for more information on ARC. The interoperability

Re: [dmarc-discuss] introduction to the list-virtual server & mailman questions

On 01/23/2016 05:08, Ben Greenfield via dmarc-discuss wrote: > My name is Ben Greenfield and I have been running a couple of smalltime mail > servers (fewer then 200 messages a day) not accounting for an occasional > blast from a 1,500 person listserv. Welcome Ben, and hopefully you got a

Re: [dmarc-discuss] introduction to the list-virtual server & mailman questions

On 02/01/2016 18:53, Steven M Jones via dmarc-discuss wrote: > >> My question regarding mailman is that I see discussion of problems with >> listserv’s but so far I haven’t seen any that seem to apply to my situation. > The problems associated with mailing lists, or more g

[dmarc-discuss] arc-discuss list, was Re: A bit quiet?

On 10/23/2015 03:52 AM, Andrew Beverley via dmarc-discuss wrote: As Rolf has already asked: is there anywhere else where ARC is being discussed? I am surprised that this is the first I have seen it mentioned on this email list. Andy There is an arc-discuss list with (at the moment) 37

Re: [dmarc-discuss] am not getting any rua reports for a domain

On 07/15/2015 12:18, Eric S Johansson via dmarc-discuss wrote: I'm acting as a third party mailer for one of my customers. ... but from my customer's domain, I get nothing even though the setup looks identical. So your issue is that you aren't receiving any aggregate reports for the domain

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender

On 07/09/2015 08:20, Sebastian Schweizer via dmarc-discuss wrote: Am I the only one who gets bounces for reports to dmarc.org's reporting address repo...@dmarc.org? Bouncing was caused by some routine changes to mail aliases. Appears to have been corrected now. Thanks for the heads-up.

Re: [dmarc-discuss] dmarc record added but no reports received

On 01/16/2015 01:17 AM, Constantino Antunes via dmarc-discuss wrote: Hi, I would like to thank everyone for the help. A report arrived today. It is small - only one source ip address - but I suppose more should arrive in the next days. If you want to receive a report quickly, send a message

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Not receiving DMARC reports

Welcome, Andrea. On 09/29/2014 09:58 AM, Andrea Castelli via dmarc-discuss wrote: tdraegen you might try chopping off the trailing !10m from your RUA and RUF tdraegen fields. Some receivers don't do a very good job parsing those. The rest of the record seems fine and I just removed the

Re: [dmarc-discuss] On Inbound DMARC Support

On 06/19/2014 08:22 AM, John Levine via dmarc-discuss wrote: But if it can help put any dent whatsoever in the endless stream of corporate data breaches, for example, I think it's a net benefit for consumers. Before I continue: No, DMARC is not designed to prevent data breaches, and will not

Re: [dmarc-discuss] On Inbound DMARC Support

On 06/19/2014 05:23 PM, Steve Atkins via dmarc-discuss wrote: On Jun 19, 2014, at 4:56 PM, Steven M Jones via dmarc-discuss dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org wrote: However DMARC can help remediate a vector commonly used to initiate an intrusion against corporate networks, I suspect you mean mitigate

Re: [dmarc-discuss] On Inbound DMARC Support

On 06/19/2014 06:58 PM, John Levine via dmarc-discuss wrote: Same-domain phishing is highly effective, so anything that addresses it is a prudent control to deploy. Yes, I believe it. Thus, inbound DMARC filtering is desirable for corporate infrastructure. No, for this threat it's

Re: [dmarc-discuss] On Inbound DMARC Support

On 06/18/2014 05:32 AM, Solomon, Dianne B via dmarc-discuss wrote: I learned this week that two of the major players in enterprise email security -- Proofpoint and IronMail -- do not support DMARC. Said one vendor to me, I understand your inbound use case for DMARC, we just don't hear it

Re: [dmarc-discuss] On Inbound DMARC Support

On 06/18/2014 08:02 AM, John Levine via dmarc-discuss wrote: As a community promoting DMARC, we have an obligation to champion deployment at both ends - inbound as well as outbound. A first step is to let our vendors know DMARC support is requirement. Um, perhaps they've heard about AOL

Re: [dmarc-discuss] suggestion to optimize the website

On 06/12/2014 04:19 AM, Andreas Schulze via dmarc-discuss wrote: http://dmarc.org/faq.html is currently one single file. Would it make send to split it in separate files so the analysed access log of the webserver could show which questions people have? Frank suggested to place a Like!