- Original Message -
From: Douglas Otis doug.mtv...@gmail.com
To: Franck Martin fra...@peachymango.org
Cc: Ned Freed ned.fr...@mrochek.com, dmarc@ietf.org, Murray S.
Kucherawy superu...@gmail.com, Douglas Otis
doug.mtv...@gmail.com
Sent: Saturday, November 8, 2014 11:58:00 PM
- Original Message -
From: ned+dm...@mrochek.com
To: John Levine jo...@taugh.com
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, superu...@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, November 7, 2014 10:47:20 AM
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base feedback
What sort of remedy would you suggest here? Off the
- Original Message -
From: ned+dm...@mrochek.com
To: John Levine jo...@taugh.com
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, superu...@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, November 7, 2014 10:47:20 AM
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base feedback
For From: headers with address-free groups, recall
On 11/8/2014 8:29 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
Note that an email with no RFC 5322 field is not valid, as well as one with
more than 1. This header is mandatory as well as the Date header. These are the
only 2 headers mandatory in an email.
So rejecting an email with no RFC 5322 or more than one
On 11/9/2014 4:19 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
I'm not talking on how many mailboxes/domain there are in this header
It would be wrong to assume SMTP will reject messages based on possible
RFC5322 violations.
While SMTP implementations have been lenient, they have been lenient in a way
which
On Nov 8, 2014, at 8:38 PM, Franck Martin fra...@peachymango.org wrote:
There are no secret sauces. I thought it was clear this type of language on
this list is frown upon as non constructive?
Just a point of clarification here. The original author was referring to
decisions that
Trimming the CC list, as we're getting into spam-trap numbers of
mailboxes.
Rolf E. Sonneveld writes:
The current effort to publish DMARC as informational RFC is mainly, to
document the current specification 'as is', to be able to refer from
other documents to a published spec. The
On November 9, 2014 4:31:31 AM EST, Franck Martin fra...@peachymango.org
wrote:
- Original Message -
From: ned+dm...@mrochek.com
To: John Levine jo...@taugh.com
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, superu...@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, November 7, 2014 10:47:20 AM
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf]
Printed on recycled paper!
On Nov 9, 2014, at 09:43, Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com wrote:
On November 9, 2014 4:31:31 AM EST, Franck Martin fra...@peachymango.org
wrote:
- Original Message -
From: ned+dm...@mrochek.com
To: John Levine jo...@taugh.com
Cc:
On 11/09/2014 04:03 PM, Tim Draegen wrote:
On Nov 8, 2014, at 8:38 PM, Franck Martin fra...@peachymango.org wrote:
There are no secret sauces. I thought it was clear this type of language on
this list is frown upon as non constructive?
Just a point of clarification here. The original author
On 11/08/2014 01:40 AM, J. Trent Adams wrote:
[...]
5.6.2. Determine Handling Policy
To arrive at a policy disposition for an individual message, Mail
Receivers MUST perform the following actions or their semantic
equivalents. Steps 2-4 MAY be done in parallel, whereas steps 5 and 6
require
Printed on recycled paper!
On Nov 9, 2014, at 10:27, Rolf E. Sonneveld r.e.sonnev...@sonnection.nl
wrote:
On 11/09/2014 04:03 PM, Tim Draegen wrote:
On Nov 8, 2014, at 8:38 PM, Franck Martin fra...@peachymango.org wrote:
There are no secret sauces. I thought it was clear this type of
On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com
wrote:
We would like to apply the most strict policy, but doesn't that
conflict
with the p=none policy, where Domain Owners can start gathering reports
without having to bother about impact on the disposition of their
- Original Message -
From: Brett McDowell brettmcdow...@gmail.com
To: Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
Sent: Sunday, November 9, 2014 12:30:31 PM
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base feedback
On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Scott Kitterman
14 matches
Mail list logo
