Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC WG Interim meeting Proposal -- request for group feedback on timing and participation

On 5 May 2021, at 21:26, Seth Blank wrote: Barry and I propose Thursday, May 27th, from 9-11am PT / 12-2pm ET / 4-6pm GMT. 2) I wish to participate in the interim, but the timing does not work (Unless some standing meetings get cancelled). But it looks like I’m the only one, so have fun, ev

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #111 - MX/A/AAAA test needs justification

This is about Section 3.8. Non-existent Domains For DMARC purposes, a non-existent domain is a domain for which there is an NXDOMAIN or NODATA response for A, , and MX records. This is a broader definition than that in [RFC8020]. My argument is that that A//MX has no useful rele

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #111 - MX/A/AAAA test needs justification

On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 18:47 John Levine wrote: > It appears that Douglas Foster > said: > >My perception has been that NDRs are widely ignored even when they are > >sent. Is your experience different? > > Yes. We are not going to rewrite RFC 5321 here. Please stop. Doug, I don’t understan

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #111 - MX/A/AAAA test needs justification

It appears that Douglas Foster said: >My perception has been that NDRs are widely ignored even when they are >sent. Is your experience different? Yes. We are not going to rewrite RFC 5321 here. Please stop. R's, John ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@i

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #111 - MX/A/AAAA test needs justification

On 5/6/2021 8:02 PM, Douglas Foster wrote: I have begun data collection on the effectiveness of the MX and A tests. Wildcard DNS entries increase the frequency of false positives and reduce the usability of the test. For example, "msaqq189.ford.com " returns a set

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #111 - MX/A/AAAA test needs justification

I have begun data collection on the effectiveness of the MX and A tests. Wildcard DNS entries increase the frequency of false positives and reduce the usability of the test. For example, "msaqq189.ford.com" returns a set of MX results, but I rather doubt that I made a lucky guess and found a mai

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #111 - MX/A/AAAA test needs justification

I was referring to this section of RFC 7208, which I have interpreted as a replacement for the older language of RFC 5321. Perhaps I overgeneralized, and it is acceptable/desirable to send NDRs if the system is confident that the return-path target is not forged. My perception has been that NDRs ar

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #111 - MX/A/AAAA test needs justification

On 05/05/2021 12:28, Douglas Foster wrote: Non-delivery reports are officially discouraged RFC 5321 Section 6.2 says the reverse. -- Cheers, Jeremy ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC WG Interim meeting Proposal -- request for group feedback on timing and participation

Yes, I will participate and the proposed timing is fine. --Kurt Andersen ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #113 - DMARCbis -01 Introduction Section

Overall I'm comfortable with the introduction verbiage. I do have one concern: "For a mail-receiving organization supporting DMARC, a message that passes validation is part of a message stream that is reliably associated with the Domain Owner and/or any, some, or all of the Authenticat

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC WG Interim meeting Proposal -- request for group feedback on timing and participation

On Thu 06/May/2021 06:26:56 +0200 Seth Blank wrote: The Chairs ask group participants to explicitly speak up if: 1) they intend to participate in the interim Yup, the intention is present. Best Ale -- ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC WG Interim meeting Proposal -- request for group feedback on timing and participation

I will be able to attend. I will ask the kind chairs that once an Interim is scheduled, you could send a calendar invite with all the details for those of us unable to function without one? thanks tim On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 11:08 AM John Levine wrote: > It appears that Seth Blank said: > >T

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC WG Interim meeting Proposal -- request for group feedback on timing and participation

It appears that Seth Blank said: >The Chairs ask group participants to explicitly speak up if: >1) they intend to participate in the interim >or 2) they wish to participate in the interim, but the timing does not work I can do it at that time. R's, John

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC WG Interim meeting Proposal -- request for group feedback on timing and participation

On 5/5/2021 9:26 PM, Seth Blank wrote: The Chairs ask group participants to explicitly speak up if: 1) they intend to participate in the interim yes. d/ -- Dave Crocker dcroc...@gmail.com 408.329.0791 Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter Information & Planning Coordinator American Red Cross dav

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC WG Interim meeting Proposal -- request for group feedback on timing and participation

I intend to participate in the interim meeting at the proposed time. Thanks, Trent From: dmarc on behalf of Seth Blank Date: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:27 PM To: IETF DMARC WG Subject: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC WG Interim meeting Proposal -- request for group feedback on timing and participatio

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Recipient domain in aggregate reports (#23)

Chair weighing in, as chair: We're divided in the sense that there are some who want to add this information, but as I see it the rough consensus is not divided: - This is extra information that's being proposed... so, a new feature. That requires rough consensus to add it. - Serious privacy issu

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC WG Interim meeting Proposal -- request for group feedback on timing and participation

On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 12:27 AM Seth Blank wrote: > WG colleagues, > > We committed to holding an interim meeting after the DMARCbis documents > were delivered, and cancelled our IETF 110 meeting to make space for the > design team to work. > > We now have new documents from the design team, and

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC WG Interim meeting Proposal -- request for group feedback on timing and participation

On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 8:21 AM Brotman, Alex wrote: > >1. Just blocked off the time on my calendar to attend > > Same. -- *Todd Herr* | Sr. Technical Program Manager *e:* todd.h...@valimail.com *m:* 703.220.4153 This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or prop

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #113 - DMARCbis -01 Introduction Section

On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 5:47 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote: > Todd, > > does your message assume that the relevant tickets are all accepted as > valid > indications to alter the spec? In particular, tickets #52 and #75 have > never > been discussed on list. I'd guess they'll have to be discussed in

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC WG Interim meeting Proposal -- request for group feedback on timing and participation

1. Just blocked off the time on my calendar to attend -- Alex Brotman Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast From: dmarc On Behalf Of Seth Blank Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 12:27 AM To: IETF DMARC WG Subject: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC WG Interim meeting Proposal -- request for group f

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #113 - DMARCbis -01 Introduction Section

Todd, does your message assume that the relevant tickets are all accepted as valid indications to alter the spec? In particular, tickets #52 and #75 have never been discussed on list. I'd guess they'll have to be discussed in their own threads. Discussing the resulting text before those tic