On Thursday, December 25, 2014 00:02:41 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Scott Kitterman
>
> wrote:
> >Messages for which SPF and/or DKIM evaluation encounters a temporary
> >DNS error have not received a definitive result for steps 3 and/or 4
> >
> > above.
On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 19:22:21 Franck Martin wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
> > From: "Scott Kitterman"
> > To: dmarc@ietf.org
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 2:48:17 PM
> > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jim Fenton's review of -04
> >
> > On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 10:
>What about pointing it may be a security issue to let these messages through?
Only if we also point out that it may be a security issue not to let them
through.
Seasons xmas,
John
___
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/lis
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> The goal, as you state it, is at the level of seeking world peace. It
> is very laudable and and very, very broad. It covers vastly more than
> the scope of DMARC.
>
> DMARC is a specific bit of technology working towards that broader goal
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
>
>Messages for which SPF and/or DKIM evaluation encounters a temporary
>DNS error have not received a definitive result for steps 3 and/or 4
> above.
>If the message has not passed the the DMARC mechanism check due to
>an SP
- Original Message -
> From: "Scott Kitterman"
> To: dmarc@ietf.org
> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 2:48:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jim Fenton's review of -04
>
> On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 10:46:42 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 4:04 AM, Scott
On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 10:46:42 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 4:04 AM, Scott Kitterman
>
> wrote:
> > The draft strongly encourages DMARC implementers to ignore SPF policy, so
> > I don't think assuming messages will be deferred due only due to SPF or
> > DKIM resu
On December 24, 2014 9:43:40 AM CST, "Murray S. Kucherawy"
wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Scott Kitterman
>wrote:
>
>> 5.6.2 promises 5.6.3 addresses the question and it doesn't. At the
>very
>> least, 5.6.2 should be fixed not to over promise what 5.6.3 will
>provide.
>>
>
>I'm not cl
On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 10:46:42 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 4:04 AM, Scott Kitterman
>
> wrote:
> > The draft strongly encourages DMARC implementers to ignore SPF policy, so
> > I don't think assuming messages will be deferred due only due to SPF or
> > DKIM resu
On 12/24/2014 7:50 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> This paragraph appears in the DMARC spec because the operators
> participating all agreed that it should be part-and-parcel of this
> operating profile of email. It's not as happenstance as this sounds so
> far; the very thrust of DMARC is to mak
- Original Message -
> From: "Murray S. Kucherawy"
> To: "Scott Kitterman"
> Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 7:46:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jim Fenton's review of -04
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 4:04 AM, Scott Kitterman < skl...@kitterman.com >
> wrote:
>
- Original Message -
> From: "Murray S. Kucherawy"
> To: "Dave Crocker"
> Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 7:50:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jim Fenton's review of -04
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Dave Crocker < d...@dcrocker.net > wrote:
> > > I disa
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > I disagree. DMARC operators all seem to apply this practice, so it's
> > correct to say that if you play this game, you reject mail from
> > non-existent domains. Essentially in this way DMARC is a profile of
> > RFC5321/RFC5322, which i
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 4:04 AM, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> The draft strongly encourages DMARC implementers to ignore SPF policy, so
> I don't think assuming messages will be deferred due only due to SPF or
> DKIM results indicating a temporary DNS error is appropriate.
>
If there's a transient D
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> 5.6.2 promises 5.6.3 addresses the question and it doesn't. At the very
> least, 5.6.2 should be fixed not to over promise what 5.6.3 will provide.
>
I'm not clear why you say "it doesn't". 5.6.3 describes two options for
handling a mess
On 12/23/2014 10:11 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> -08 text says:
>
> "If the RFC5322.From domain does not exist in the DNS, Mail
>Receivers
>SHOULD direct the receiving SMTP server to reject the message. The
>choice of mechanism for such rejection and the i
On December 24, 2014 2:20:30 AM EST, "Murray S. Kucherawy"
wrote:
>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 norma
On December 24, 2014 1:32:44 AM EST, "Murray S. Kucherawy"
wrote:
>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
On December 24, 2014 12:49:04 AM EST, "Murray S. Kucherawy"
wrote:
>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
>> q
19 matches
Mail list logo
