Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 12:42:25AM -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
2. The spec is clear about how it works and what the implications are.
The
issue with mailing lists is well-documented.
I don't agree with this.
Murray's response is the key point. Large email providers like DMARC because it
helps cut down on phishing (which results in fewer compromised accounts), user
complaints (which reduces support calls) and is fairly straightforward to
implement (which makes the codebase more maintainable). They re
On Apr 14, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> What would also help is:
> - Implementations that actually follow the spec. So far I have
> received 0 report mails that follow the specification.
http://search.cpan.org/dist/Mail-DMARC/
and the report format definition:
http://search.cpan.
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 12:42:25AM -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> > > 2. The spec is clear about how it works and what the implications are.
> > The
> > > issue with mailing lists is well-documented.
> >
> > I don't agree with this.
>
On Monday, April 14, 2014 9:59 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> come on, ppl, dmarc needs to be fixed. it's broken, it doesn't work well but
>> in very narrow field.
> Do you have any specific suggestions
as a matter of fact, yes, i do.
i already mentioned including SRS in check logic. unfortu
On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Vlatko Salaj wrote:
> come on, ppl, dmarc needs to be fixed. it's broken, it doesn't work well
> but
> in very narrow field.
>
Do you have any specific suggestions?
-MSK
___
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www
On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Miles Fidelman
wrote:
>
> Well, let's see:
> - DMARC.org defines the "DMARC Base Specification" with a link to
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base/ - an IETF
> document
> - they published an information Internet draft, that expires in Octo
On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > 2. The spec is clear about how it works and what the implications are.
> The
> > issue with mailing lists is well-documented.
>
> I don't agree with this.
>
If you have any specific suggestions for how it can be improved, now would
be a g
