Re: [dmarc-discuss] Still having problems with third-party sending

2015-08-20 Thread Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss
Eric Johnansson wrote: Maybe the misunderstanding speaks to a common conceptual model for outsiders? what are the implications of generalizing selectors to identifying different streams? The relevant DKIM construct would appear to be the signature domain parameters (d={something}). This

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Still having problems with third-party sending

2015-08-20 Thread eric johnansson via dmarc-discuss
- Original Message - From: John Levine jo...@taugh.com To: dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org Cc: e...@in3x.io Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 1:57:19 PM Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] Still having problems with third-party sending DKIM and DMARC and for that matter SPF are not designed to

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Still having problems with third-party sending

2015-08-20 Thread John Levine via dmarc-discuss
I'm trying to improve my understanding of the third-party sender problem when, for reasons technical and political, you want to maintain a distance between organizational domain and the working domain. DKIM and DMARC and for that matter SPF are not designed to distinguish among authorized

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Still having problems with third-party sending

2015-08-20 Thread John R Levine via dmarc-discuss
I've been looking at examples. I'm not sure how to solve the problem of recipient perception of the subdomain. we have been so effective at convincing people that email addresses that look different from what you are expecting are a phishing attack and they should simply delete it that they