On 12/22/2014 11:39 AM, Kurt Andersen wrote:
> Failing means that the polices are not applied. As in MUST NOT be
> applied.
>
>
> DMARC is built on a positive assertion model. To say that a failure
> means that no policy is applied is contrary to the model. The policy is
> explicitly *ap
On Monday, December 22, 2014 11:16:01 AM Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 12/22/2014 11:11 AM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
> >> Perhaps 5.6.3 needs something like "SHOULD NOT act on DMARC policy if a
> >> temporary error in SPF or DKIM processing prevents a full evaluation."
> >
> > +1
>
> We need to be car
- Original Message -
> From: "Dave Crocker"
> To: "R E Sonneveld" , "Scott Kitterman"
>
> Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 11:16:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jim Fenton's review of -04
>
> On 12/22/2014 11:11 AM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
> >>
> >> Perhaps 5.
On 12/22/2014 08:16 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 12/22/2014 11:11 AM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
Perhaps 5.6.3 needs something like "SHOULD NOT act on DMARC policy if a
temporary error in SPF or DKIM processing prevents a full evaluation."
+1
We need to be careful about how this is phrased. I sp
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 12/22/2014 11:11 AM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
> >>
> >> Perhaps 5.6.3 needs something like "SHOULD NOT act on DMARC policy if a
> >> temporary error in SPF or DKIM processing prevents a full evaluation."
> >
> > +1
>
> We need to be caref
On 12/22/2014 11:11 AM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps 5.6.3 needs something like "SHOULD NOT act on DMARC policy if a
>> temporary error in SPF or DKIM processing prevents a full evaluation."
>
> +1
We need to be careful about how this is phrased. I specifically suspect
that the above
On 12/22/2014 08:02 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Monday, December 22, 2014 12:40:36 PM Franck Martin wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Scott Kitterman"
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 7:44:04 AM
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jim Fenton's review of -04
On Friday, Dece
On Monday, December 22, 2014 12:40:36 PM Franck Martin wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
> > From: "Scott Kitterman"
> > To: dmarc@ietf.org
> > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 7:44:04 AM
> > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jim Fenton's review of -04
> >
> > On Friday, December 19, 2014 01:30:10
- Original Message -
> From: "Scott Kitterman"
> To: dmarc@ietf.org
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 7:44:04 AM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jim Fenton's review of -04
>
> On Friday, December 19, 2014 01:30:10 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > Colleagues,
> >
> > draft-kucherawy-dmar
On Friday, December 19, 2014 01:30:10 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Colleagues,
>
> draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base is nearing IESG conflict review, and it's been
> pointed out that a review from back in April has not been properly attended
> to.
>
> Could I get the WG (forgive me, co-chairs!) to co
10 matches
Mail list logo