On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Franck Martin
wrote:
> --
>
> *From: *"Murray S. Kucherawy"
> *To: *"Franck Martin"
> *Cc: *dmarc@ietf.org, "Scott Kitterman"
> *Sent: *Tuesday, December 23, 2014 11:20:30 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jim Fenton's review of -04
>
Colleagues,
I'm now completely caught up (as far as I can tell) on addressing feedback
about the DMARC base draft that's going through the ISE process.
As before, I'm resisting changes that add or change anything normative.
I'm going only for things that clarify text, increase the accurate
reflec
- Original Message -
> From: "Murray S. Kucherawy"
> To: "Franck Martin"
> Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, "Scott Kitterman"
> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 11:20:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jim Fenton's review of -04
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 2:13 AM, Franck Martin < fra...@peachymango.o
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 2:13 AM, Franck Martin
wrote:
> I think we should recommend something here, not sure if it needs to be
> normative. We do say to ignore the SPF policy when p!=none, though I think
> we can be normative on the lower layers. I see 2 options here:
> 1)tempfail the message is
- Original Message -
> From: "Murray S. Kucherawy"
> To: "Scott Kitterman"
> Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 10:32:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jim Fenton's review of -04
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Scott Kitterman < skl...@kitterman.com >
> wrote:
>
Covering the stuff Dave didn't cover:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
> Top of page 6: "The receiver reports to the domain owner..." The
> receiver actually sends reports to a report receiver designated by the
> domain owner.
>
Fixed.
> 2.4 Out of Scope
>
> I still find th
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> There was a recent thread on postfix-users about DMARC rejections when
> there
> are DNS errors that caused me to review -08 to see what it says on the
> matter.
>
> At the end of section 5.6.2, it says:
>
>Handling of messages for wh
For the stuff not already answered in my last reply to Dave:
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Jim Fenton wrote:
> [2.4 Out of Scope]
> >> Bullet 10: Again, DMARC doesn't do authentication, even for domains; it
> >> relies on other authentication mechanisms.
> > I originally thought this, too, bu
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > 3.2 Organizational Domain
> >
> > I remain very concerned about this algorithm since I have been
> > previously told very specifically not to do this by the DNS folks. I'm
> > also concerned about the inconsistency (interoperability impact)
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
>
> As I read -08 what to do in that case is undefined. There's a dangling
> pointer
> to 5.6.3. It's dangling because nothing in that section addresses the
> question of how to handle DKIM/SPF temporary errors.
>
>
5.6.3's final paragraph
Hi Rolf, getting back to your review (thanks for the nudge):
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld <
r.e.sonnev...@sonnection.nl> wrote:
>
>
> Abstract:
>
> This lack of cohesion has several effects: receivers have difficulty
> providing feedback to senders about authentication, send
11 matches
Mail list logo
