On Thu 21/Sep/2023 22:27:30 +0200 Brotman, Alex wrote:
Including that data in a DMARC report may not be very useful if it's going
to the domain holder instead of the DKIM signer. For example, SES signs all
of their messages, but unless that 5322 owner shares the data, they wouldn't
see any
Ale,
Including that data in a DMARC report may not be very useful if it's going to
the domain holder instead of the DKIM signer. For example, SES signs all of
their messages, but unless that 5322 owner shares the data, they wouldn't see
any information relating to those signatures.
--
Alex
On Sun 10/Sep/2023 18:44:00 +0200 Jesse Thompson wrote:
On Fri, Sep 8, 2023, at 9:23 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 7:17 AM Jesse Thompson wrote:__
Is rfc6651 a lost cause? It looks like it defines a reporting mechanism in
control of the signer, as opposed to the
On Fri, Sep 8, 2023, at 9:23 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 7:17 AM Jesse Thompson wrote:__
Is rfc6651 a lost cause? It looks like it defines a reporting mechanism in
control of the signer, as opposed to the attacker.
>>>
>>> Has anyone (else) implemented it?
