I'm already lost of whats going on. It seems we are waiting of Murray.
Its all Murray. Geez, Its all really Murray's framework to all this.
Not a negative, but there has to be more. There is more. There has
always been more, that is why we are lost here after 9 years.
We need policy and we
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
We always know that DMARC always fails on a SPF failure as well.
DMARC = DKIM + SPF
So any failure on DKIM or SPF is part of a DKIM failure. If that is not
TRUE, then it needs to be part of the discussion. A SPF
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
I'm already lost of whats going on. It seems we are waiting of Murray. Its
all Murray. Geez, Its all really Murray's framework to all this. Not a
negative, but there has to be more. There is more. There has always been
Murray S. Kucherawy writes:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
I'm already lost of whats going on. It seems we are waiting of Murray. Its
all Murray. Geez, Its all really Murray's framework to all this. Not a
negative, but there has to be more.
Dear Hector and Murray,
Those in a good position to deal with an abuse problem don't want resulting
disruptions seen as being within their bailiwick. Instead expect documentation
explaining why it is not affordable for DMARC domains to directly deal with
their policy induced disruptions of
