On Monday, December 01, 2014 03:56:42 John Levine wrote:
> >So the edge system generates a bounce message (MDN). Knowing that
> >RFC5321.MailFrom will "<>". To be DMARC compliant the RFC5321.HELO/.EHLO
> >name must be align with the RFC5322.From of the MDN.
> Why wouldn't you add a DKIM signature t
- Original Message -
> From: "John Levine"
> To: dmarc@ietf.org
> Cc: "jose ferreira"
> Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 3:56:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC and Bounces (was: Indirect Mail Flows)
>
> Why wouldn't you add a DKIM signature that matches the domain name in
> the messa
>So the edge system generates a bounce message (MDN). Knowing that
>RFC5321.MailFrom will "<>".
>To be DMARC compliant the RFC5321.HELO/.EHLO name must be align with the
>RFC5322.From of the MDN.
Why wouldn't you add a DKIM signature that matches the domain name in
the message From: line? The e
- Original Message -
> From: "José Ferreira"
> To: "Hector Santos"
> Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 11:58:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC and Bounces (was: Indirect Mail Flows)
>
> Forget about ML. I'm not only talking about ML but for a specific situat
- Original Message -
> From: "Stephen J. Turnbull"
> To: "José Ferreira"
> Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
> Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 10:22:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC and Bounces (was: Indirect Mail Flows)
>
> José Ferreira writes:
>
> > I think there should be a wider referenc
- Original Message -
> From: "Hector Santos"
> To: "José Ferreira"
> Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 3:42:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC and Bounces (was: Indirect Mail Flows)
>
> All I reading (and it seems to be subsiding) are ML folks trying to
> advocat
On 11/29/2014 7:04 AM, José Ferreira wrote:
Like is said, they are rare but important. And some domain owners may not adopt
p=reject for that reason.
Jose Borges Ferreira
Domains that publish a p=reject and don 't understand its possible
outcomes, shouldn't be our (IETF protocol standards d
