On Thursday, April 24, 2014 8:20 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
> Take a look at the 2006 DSAP I-D proposed author domain policy
> protocol which provided tags to covered the complete 1st vs 3rd party
> boundary conditions for DKIM signing practices:
seems reasonable.
but, believe me, there's no need
Hi Terry,
At 11:27 24-04-2014, Terry Zink wrote:
1. DKIM has much more prevalence in 2014 than it did in 2006, so
requiring it today isn't as big an obstacle.
2. DKIM doesn't tie the d= signature field to the 5322.From:
address. So, you can DKIM-sign all you want and add authorized third
part
n 4/24/2014 2:27 PM, Terry Zink wrote:
ADSP was brushed off because the same folks who believed ADSP's strong
reject/discard policy concept will ever get used, also believed DMARC's strong
p=reject will never be used as well, and certainly not by the likes of a AOL.COM
and YAHOO.COM, two aged a
- Original Message -
> From: "Murray S. Kucherawy"
> To: "Terry Zink"
> Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, "Hector Santos" , "DMARC Discuss"
>
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 11:56:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] [dmarc-ietf] FYI: AOL Mail updates DMARC policy
> to 'reject'
> When we did ADSP (
- Original Message -
> From: "Jim Fenton"
> To: dmarc@ietf.org
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 2:27:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] FYI: AOL Mail updates DMARC policy to 'reject'
>
> > 3. DMARC is basically an anti-phishing technology, whereas while DKIM +
> > ADSP can do that, it do
On Thursday, April 24, 2014 6:44 PM [GMT+1=CET], Terry Zink wrote:
> > > On Apr 24, 2014, at 3:46 AM, Hector Santos
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > change ADSP to DMARC below at the IETF RFC Status change link.
> > > Technically, it is still almost no deployment, just a few BIG
> > > guys!!
>
> > I
On 4/24/14 11:27 AM, Terry Zink wrote:
> Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that there are significant differences
> between now and when ADSP was being investigated:
>
> 1. DKIM has much more prevalence in 2014 than it did in 2006, so requiring it
> today isn't as big an obstacle.
ADSP is pub
Dianne
I am not aware of any active efforts. Here are a few options that may have some
viability for you and others. They may not have any viability either. :)
NOTE: This is not a statement that there is an acceptable solution to the
privacy issues nor that additional work shouldn’t be done. Me
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Terry Zink
wrote:
> Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that there are significant
> differences between now and when ADSP was being investigated:
>
> 1. DKIM has much more prevalence in 2014 than it did in 2006, so requiring
> it today isn't as big an obstacle.
> ADSP was brushed off because the same folks who believed ADSP's strong
> reject/discard policy concept will ever get used, also believed DMARC's
> strong
> p=reject will never be used as well, and certainly not by the likes of a
> AOL.COM
> and YAHOO.COM, two aged and polluted domains like m
On 4/22/2014 3:20 AM, Vlatko Salaj wrote:
On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 1:18 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
I think the DKIM 3rd party resigner issue is the more important issue
at this point.
i hold both are important.
...
i really see no reason why DMARC can't be flexible enough to include it.
On Apr 24, 2014, at 9:44 AM, Terry Zink wrote:
>>> On Apr 24, 2014, at 3:46 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
>>>
>>> change ADSP to DMARC below at the IETF RFC Status change link.
>>> Technically, it is still almost no deployment, just a few BIG guys!!
>>>
>>>
>>> Hector
>
>> I challenge your asse
On 4/24/2014 12:44 PM, Terry Zink wrote:
On Apr 24, 2014, at 3:46 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
change ADSP to DMARC below at the IETF RFC Status change link.
Technically, it is still almost no deployment, just a few BIG guys!!
Hector
I challenge your assertion that there is "almost no deployme
On 4/24/14, 12:37 AM, Tony Hansen wrote:
On 4/23/14, 8:59 AM, Michael Storz wrote:
Just saw it in my logs. You find the announcement at
http://postmaster-blog.aol.com/2014/04/22/aol-mail-updates-dmarc-policy-to-reject/
And I saw a dmarc rejection this morning from a comcast address.
Sigh
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:39:29AM -0600, Greg Colburn wrote:
>
> On Apr 24, 2014, at 3:46 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
> >
> > change ADSP to DMARC below at the IETF RFC Status change link.
> > Technically, it is still almost no deployment, just a few BIG guys!!
> >
>
> Hector
>
> I challenge y
Hi.. I am new to DMARC. From what I am learning, few companies are
implementing forensic reporting because of potential privacy issues. Has
there been discussion on changing the format or delivery of the forensic
reports that would make it a more acceptable option?
Dianne Blitstein Solom
>> On Apr 24, 2014, at 3:46 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
>>
>> change ADSP to DMARC below at the IETF RFC Status change link.
>> Technically, it is still almost no deployment, just a few BIG guys!!
>>
>>
>> Hector
> I challenge your assertion that there is "almost no deployment". In the past
> 3
On Apr 24, 2014, at 3:46 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
>
> change ADSP to DMARC below at the IETF RFC Status change link.
> Technically, it is still almost no deployment, just a few BIG guys!!
>
Hector
I challenge your assertion that there is “almost no deployment”. In the past 3
days at Return
On Apr 23, 2014, at 15:23, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> At 17:30 22-04-2014, Martin Rex wrote:
>> Some MTAs (sendmail?) seem to recreate an RFC5322.From from the Envelope,
>> in case that it is missing in the message.
>
> Yes, sendmail does that.
Unless you prevent it by removing the F=F e
On 4/23/2014 8:59 AM, Michael Storz wrote:
Just saw it in my logs. You find the announcement at
http://postmaster-blog.aol.com/2014/04/22/aol-mail-updates-dmarc-policy-to-reject/
So much for the theory that DKIM ADSP-like strong policies would never
be used by big operations! And the irony,
20 matches
Mail list logo
