On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> While John Levine cited the benefits of the "experimental" approach taken
> for EAI (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/
> gvUecJuYLT9GIh5zbcZ_U9CgNkw), I'm also biased by the "let's all just play
> nice" mess that came from des
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 12:39 AM, Bron Gondwana
wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2018, at 04:34, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
>
> As I went through the edits for https://tools.ietf.org/htm
> l/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-10#section-5.2.1 I was unable to
> understand the value added by having the "arc.closest-
In article
you write:
>header.s is NOT defined: https://www.iana.org/assignments/email-auth/email-
>auth.xhtml
Quite right, need to put it in the IANA considerations of something.
FWIW, I added header.s to my SMTP daemon this afternoon. It took
about 10 minuutes. I'm a pretty good programmer,
On Wed, 3 Jan 2018, at 04:34, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> As I went through the edits for
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-10#section-5.2.1
> I was unable to understand the value added by having the "arc.closest-
> fail" listed in the AAR.
Please read my examples again if
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:44 PM, Seth Blank wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Kurt Andersen (b)
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 7:38 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see the point of the header.ds field. We already have header.d,
>>> so why not just add header.s?
>>>
>>
>>
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 7:38 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
>
>> I don't see the point of the header.ds field. We already have header.d,
>> so why not just add header.s?
>>
>
> Yes, quite so. Please see my note from earlier this morning. hea
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 7:38 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
> I don't see the point of the header.ds field. We already have header.d,
> so why not just add header.s?
>
Yes, quite so. Please see my note from earlier this morning. header.s is
already defined for 7601, we just need to indicate that it n
I don't see the point of the header.ds field. We already have header.d,
so why not just add header.s?
If there are two DKIM validations, the A-R header will look like this, no
confusion I can see:
Authentication-Results: example.com; ...
dkim=pass header.d=foo.com header.s=abc; header.b="A
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
I don't think this will be super complicated, but I do think it would be a
mistake to try and publish now and then retrofit rather than adding it
before we publish.
I agree (which is why I started off with the first draft that is currently
found in
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Seth Blank wrote:
> Sections 4.7 and 4.8 from my proposal (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/
> arch/msg/dmarc/yl1HWdNbmQR1wHlCvG3eRl9ph5E) were not moved into the
> protocol elements section of the latest draft (
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-pro
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 6:36 PM, John R Levine wrote:
> I still don't understand why we need to say more than DKIM did on this
>> topic.
>
>
> I don't think this will be super complicated, but I do think it would be a
> mistake to try and publish now and then retrofit rather than adding it
> befo
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Seth Blank wrote:
> The Implementation Status section of the draft (
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-10#section-14)
> feels out of date.
>
Yes - I forgot to update that in the -10 version. I've added in information
about MessageSystems
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 12:15 AM, Seth Blank wrote:
> I'm beginning a new thread to explicitly address some differences of
> opinion in the working group.
>
> Coming out of IETF99 and surrounding working group conversations (
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/5_OP8lVi-a3yHMS0hqs1clyLW
As I went through the edits for
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-10#section-5.2.1
I was unable to understand the value added by having the "arc.closest-fail"
listed in the AAR.
Looking back through the list archives, the idea for this pvalue seems to
have come up in mid-Au
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Seth Blank wrote:
> If 7601bis proceeds to allow content for filters in addition to humans,
> then I believe the actions in the ARC draft (https://tools.ietf.org/html/
> draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-10) are as follows:
>
> Section 5.2 is cleaned up to inherit AA
> On Dec 29, 2017, at 12:29 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> Chairs, should we start using the WG's issue tracker for this stuff?
Speaking as an observer, I personally would find that helpful.
Thanks,
Stan
>> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Seth Blank wrote:
>> Sections 4.7 and 4.8 from m
16 matches
Mail list logo
