On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Vlatko Salaj wrote:
> > It may not be that ATPS solves any of your problems, but the ATPS
> community
> > (small as it is) can similarly say that SRS doesn't solve theirs.
>
> well, i do not have any proposal on how to fix ATPS-induced DKIM
> DMARC-alignment fail.
On Friday, February 14, 2014 8:36 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> It may not be that ATPS solves any of your problems, but the ATPS community
> (small as it is) can similarly say that SRS doesn't solve theirs.
well, i do not have any proposal on how to fix ATPS-induced DKIM
DMARC-alignment fa
- Original Message -
> From: "Vlatko Salaj"
> To: dmarc@ietf.org
> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 11:54:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] SRS helps SPF/DMARC
>
> On Friday, February 14, 2014 8:06 PM, Franck Martin
> wrote:
>
>
> >> It would be far better for DMARC to be able to po
On Friday, February 14, 2014 8:06 PM, Franck Martin
wrote:
>> It would be far better for DMARC to be able to point at a stable reference
>> for
>> SRS, assuming the DMARC community wants to include such a reference.
> If I'm not mistaken, even if you did not create SRS, if the Intellectual
> p
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Vlatko Salaj wrote:
> > (2) Nudging people in the direction of considering SRS suggests we
> should also
> > start mentioning DKIM extensions that further complicate things, like the
> > experimental ATPS. I'm not sure of the benefit.
>
> ATSP solves another scena
On Friday, February 14, 2014 4:24 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> (2) Nudging people in the direction of considering SRS suggests we should also
> start mentioning DKIM extensions that further complicate things, like the
> experimental ATPS. I'm not sure of the benefit.
ATSP solves another sc
- Original Message -
> From: "Murray S. Kucherawy"
> To: "Vlatko Salaj"
> Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 10:56:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] SRS helps SPF/DMARC
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Vlatko Salaj < vlatko.sa...@goodone.tk >
> wrote:
> > however, w
- Original Message -
> From: "Vlatko Salaj"
> To: dmarc@ietf.org
> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 12:23:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] SRS helps SPF/DMARC
>
> On Friday, February 14, 2014 12:42 AM, Franck Martin
> wrote:
>
>
> > Transitive trust is hard to implement and DKIM canno
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Vlatko Salaj wrote:
> however, waking those SRS ppl up may rly require some authority figure.
> they are,
> kind of, happy with their protocol, and its stability and usage. do try,
> if u
> wish. at least i will be grateful. :)=
>
It's kind of telling, to me at le
On Friday, February 14, 2014 4:32 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> Has anyone in the SRS community expressed interest in seeking
standardization?
> it's in substantial, protracted use, then it
probably should be published at
> least with Informational status.
there has been many calls for th
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Vlatko Salaj wrote:
> and yes, i'm aware SRS hasn't been standardized, but
> mentioning it in dmarc specs may also help add some traction to
> that, almost completely stable and functional, technique
> of fixing some grief introduced by forwarders.
>
>
>
Has anyone
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Vlatko Salaj wrote:
> no. u use SRS heuristics to determine why SPF/DMARC have failed in the 1st
> place; so other way around. however, i'm not suggesting we should extend
> DMARC
> spec to include that. i do suggest we mention it as a useful technique when
> deplo
From: Mike Jones
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Terry Zink
> wrote:
>
> We're currently building DMARC support and before we go live, I am
> looking for some numbers around known cases of DMARC
> quarantining/rejecting legitimate email.
>
> So somewhere in the range of 1.4% - 4.8% of DMARC f
On Friday, February 14, 2014 9:26 AM, "dmarc-requ...@ietf.org"
wrote:
> 1. That a given IP address has a substantial, sustained message volume;
large and persistent enough to perform meaningful statistical analysis on.
> 2. That the complaint rate for messages from that IP address is
On Friday, February 14, 2014 12:42 AM, Franck Martin
wrote:
> Transitive trust is hard to implement and DKIM cannot sign this field.
undeniable. however, that's no different from any other situation, and it's not
DMARC's goal to achieve email's authenticity verification. we would still rely
on
15 matches
Mail list logo
