On January 21, 2015 12:31:45 AM EST, Franck Martin
wrote:
>
>- Original Message -
>> From: "Scott Kitterman"
>> To: dmarc@ietf.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 9:02:26 PM
>> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ... and two more tiny nits, while I'm at it
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 17
- Original Message -
> From: "Scott Kitterman"
> To: dmarc@ietf.org
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 9:02:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ... and two more tiny nits, while I'm at it
>
> On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 17:40:39 Franck Martin wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> >
>
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 17:40:39 Franck Martin wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
> > From: "Scott Kitterman"
> > To: dmarc@ietf.org
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 2:49:01 PM
> > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ... and two more tiny nits, while I'm at it
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Last time
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 22:57:34 John Levine wrote:
> >HELO results are unrelated to DMARC.
>
> Is that still true when the bounce address is empty? It's fairly common
> to have an NDR with an empty bounce address and
>
> From: MAILER-DAEMON@flaky.example
>
> Assuming it's not DKIM signed
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 22:55:58 Terry Zink wrote:
> >7208 actually recommends that the HELO string be evaluated every time.
> >
> > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7208#section-2.3
>
> They do say to check it both times but I don't agree with the rationale
> provided. Expanding on the exc
John Levine writes:
> There's no great hurry in getting the DMARC document published, since
> nothing currently depends on it, and if reasonable people are finding
> holes in it that make it hard to write interoperable code, I'd rather
> fix the holes than add lengthy errata or recycle later.
>Do people concur with this change, or something close to it?
I'm OK with it, but to the meta-question, I realize the practical
issues involved with yanking something out of the production queue,
but in this case I wonder if that's not the right thing to do.
There's no great hurry in getting the
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Anne Bennett
wrote:
> I apologize for my inadvertently poor timing; I was catapulted
> into all this last week when my parent domain (also my
> Organizational Domain) published an SPF record and a DKIM
> record, and we became concerned that they might implement DM
- Original Message -
> From: "John Levine"
> To: dmarc@ietf.org
> Cc: skl...@kitterman.com
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 2:57:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ... and two more tiny nits, while I'm at it
>
> >HELO results are unrelated to DMARC.
>
> Is that still true when the bounce
- Original Message -
> From: "Scott Kitterman"
> To: dmarc@ietf.org
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 2:49:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ... and two more tiny nits, while I'm at it
>
>
> Last time I had stats, it was about 10% as common as Mail From oriented
> records. Much less c
>HELO results are unrelated to DMARC.
Is that still true when the bounce address is empty? It's fairly common
to have an NDR with an empty bounce address and
From: MAILER-DAEMON@flaky.example
Assuming it's not DKIM signed (most NDRs aren't) what's a DMARC user
supposed to do?
R's,
John
>7208 actually recommends that the HELO string be evaluated every time.
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7208#section-2.3
They do say to check it both times but I don't agree with the rationale
provided. Expanding on the excerpt that Laura provided:
2.3. The "HELO" Identity
It is RECOM
Franck Martin writes:
> Yes, RFC7208 says evaluate both in parallel, but the result
> of an spf=pass/fail is highly constrained on the success or
> failure of the MAIL FROM spf test.
Actually, it recommends checking the HELO identity first,
because if you get a definite result from that, you ma
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 16:38:43 Franck Martin wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
> > From: "Scott Kitterman"
> > To: dmarc@ietf.org
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 2:29:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ... and two more tiny nits, while I'm at it
> >
> > On Tuesday, January 20,
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 14:34:22 Laura Atkins wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2015, at 2:14 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> >> But on the off-chance that it's not impossible to clarify
> >> this now, and assuming that my growing suspicion that HELO is
> >
> >> ignored is correct, then I would propose:
> > Yo
- Original Message -
> From: "Scott Kitterman"
> To: dmarc@ietf.org
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 2:29:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ... and two more tiny nits, while I'm at it
>
> On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 16:14:32 Franck Martin wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> >
On Jan 20, 2015, at 2:14 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>
>> But on the off-chance that it's not impossible to clarify
>> this now, and assuming that my growing suspicion that HELO is
>> ignored is correct, then I would propose:
>>
>
> Your confusion on HELO is may be related to the fact that the H
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 16:14:32 Franck Martin wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
> > From: "Anne Bennett"
> > To: "DMARC list"
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:44:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ... and two more tiny nits, while I'm at it
> >
> >
> > Hi, Murray.
> >
> > MK
- Original Message -
> From: "Anne Bennett"
> To: "DMARC list"
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:44:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ... and two more tiny nits, while I'm at it
>
>
> Hi, Murray.
>
> MK> I think all of the points in your three messages are good input for a
> more
Hi, Murray.
MK> I think all of the points in your three messages are good input for a more
MK> solid specification, but the timing is unfortunate as we just got
MK> publication approval for -12 a week ago.
I apologize for my inadvertently poor timing; I was catapulted
into all this last week whe
FYI
I'm still a bit new on the IETF processes, so apologies if I stepped outside
normal tracks...
-
A new version of I-D, draft-dmarc-interoperability-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Franck Martin and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name: draft-dmarc-inter
21 matches
Mail list logo
