Thanks for taking the time to look at the draft John. I¹ll post this to the smtp list as well.
I just responded to Kurt¹s concerns and would like to hear your opinion on the answers. -- Glen Wiley Principal Engineer Verisign, Inc. (571) 230-7917 A5E5 E373 3C75 5B3E 2E24 6A0F DC65 2354 9946 C63A On 2/2/16, 8:36 PM, "John Levine" <[email protected]> wrote: >In article <d2d6ac82.24ca7%[email protected]> you write: >>-=-=-=-=-=- >>-=-=-=-=-=- >> >>In light of all of the discussion about how the LHS of email addresses >>are normalized and encoded/hashed in order to be used to >>publish certificates and keys via DANE records like SMIMEA and >>OPENPGPKEY we have put together an approach that lets a zone owner >>signal the policy that is used for their domain by adding a few keywords >>to the DMARC record. >> >>The draft is at: >>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-osterweil-dmarc-dane-names/ > >Since this is a a draft about mail operations, I would strongly >suggest that you post it to the ietf-smtp list, where people with >experience in nontrival mail systems hang out. > >In particular, you might ask about "canonicalization policy of LHS >portions of email addresses", and to move things along, you might want >to review RFC 5321 and find a better term than LHS. > >I also share Kurt's concern that it seems like a bad idea to mix >advice intended for MUAs with the existing DMARC advice which is >purely for MTAs. > >R's, >John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
