On Thursday, January 22, 2015 23:52:58 Franck Martin wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
> > From: "Scott Kitterman"
> > To: dmarc@ietf.org
> > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 8:41:39 PM
> > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] questions on the spec, was ... and two more tiny
> > nits, while I'm at it>
- Original Message -
> From: "Scott Kitterman"
> To: dmarc@ietf.org
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 8:41:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] questions on the spec, was ... and two more tiny
> nits, while I'm at it
>
> On Thursday, January 22, 2015 22:04:59 Franck Martin wrote:
> >
On January 22, 2015 1:27:40 PM EST, "Murray S. Kucherawy"
wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy
>
>wrote:
>
>> I am asking the IESG and the ISE what the process is for making such
>> adjustments now.
>>
>> Mainly my resistance to further change comes from the fact that we'
On January 22, 2015 4:20:35 PM EST, Michael Jack Assels
wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 14:46:59 CST,
>Franck Martin wrote:
>
>> - Original Message -
>> > From: "Michael Jack Assels"
>> > To: dmarc@ietf.org
>> > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 12:00:58 PM
>> > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] qu
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 22:04:59 Franck Martin wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
> > From: "Scott Kitterman"
> > To: dmarc@ietf.org
> > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 7:16:58 PM
> > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] questions on the spec, was ... and two more tiny
> > nits, while I'm at it>
- Original Message -
> From: "Scott Kitterman"
> To: dmarc@ietf.org
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 7:16:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] questions on the spec, was ... and two more tiny
> nits, while I'm at it
>
> On Friday, January 23, 2015 03:03:28 John Levine wrote:
> > >RFC 720
On Friday, January 23, 2015 03:03:28 John Levine wrote:
> >RFC 7208 doesn't say the HELO result determines anything. It says IF (I say
> >again IF) a decision has been reached about message disposition based on
> >the HELO result, there is no requirement to go ahead and do a pointless
> >Mail From
>RFC 7208 doesn't say the HELO result determines anything. It says IF (I say
>again IF) a decision
>has been reached about message disposition based on the HELO result, there is
>no requirement to go
>ahead and do a pointless Mail From check.
While that is certainly one plausible interpretation
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 20:16:30 Franck Martin wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
> > From: ned+dm...@mrochek.com
> > To: "John Levine"
> > Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, skl...@kitterman.com
> > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 5:41:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] questions on the spec, was
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 17:59:42 Kurt Andersen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Scott Kitterman
>
> wrote:
> > On January 22, 2015 6:35:59 PM EST, Kurt Andersen
> >
> > wrote:
> > >On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Scott Kitterman
> > >
> > >wrote:
> > >> If I were configuring an
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 17:41:46 Ned Freed wrote:
> > >DMARC leverages the Mail From identity, so I don't see how independent
> > >HELO checks can be relevant.>
> > If you look at sections 2.3 and 2.4 of RFC 7208, a reasonable
> > interpretation is that you check the HELO identity, and if yo
- Original Message -
> From: "Kurt Andersen"
> To: "Scott Kitterman"
> Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 5:59:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] questions on the spec, was ... and two more tiny
> nits, while I'm at it
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Scott Kitterman
- Original Message -
> From: ned+dm...@mrochek.com
> To: "John Levine"
> Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, skl...@kitterman.com
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 5:41:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] questions on the spec, was ... and two more tiny
> nits, while I'm at it
>
> > >DMARC leverages the
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> On January 22, 2015 6:35:59 PM EST, Kurt Andersen
> wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Scott Kitterman
> >wrote:
> >
> >> If I were configuring and SPF verifier to provide an input to DMARC
> >> processing, then I would probably
> >DMARC leverages the Mail From identity, so I don't see how independent HELO
> >checks can be relevant.
> If you look at sections 2.3 and 2.4 of RFC 7208, a reasonable
> interpretation is that you check the HELO identity, and if you get a
> "definitive policy" result, you're done and return tha
On January 22, 2015 6:35:59 PM EST, Kurt Andersen wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Scott Kitterman
>wrote:
>
>> If I were configuring and SPF verifier to provide an input to DMARC
>> processing, then I would probably configure it not to reject based on
>SPF
>> fail. Then the problem does
On January 22, 2015 7:13:46 PM EST, Terry Zink
wrote:
>The way it works in Office 365 is this:
>
>1. When checking SPF, use the domain in the 5321.MailFrom. If it is
>empty, use the domain in the HELO/EHLO.
>2. Use the domain extracted from (1) when doing the DMARC alignment
>check for SPF.
>
>We
The way it works in Office 365 is this:
1. When checking SPF, use the domain in the 5321.MailFrom. If it is empty, use
the domain in the HELO/EHLO.
2. Use the domain extracted from (1) when doing the DMARC alignment check for
SPF.
We don't check both 5321.MailFrom AND HELO/EHLO for SPF. I've ne
- Original Message -
> From: "Rolf E. Sonneveld"
> To: "Franck Martin" , "Michael Jack Assels"
>
> Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 3:08:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] questions on the spec, was ... and two more tiny
> nits, while I'm at it
>
> On 01/22/2015
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> If I were configuring and SPF verifier to provide an input to DMARC
> processing, then I would probably configure it not to reject based on SPF
> fail. Then the problem doesn't arise.
>
> This really is a non-issue.
>
Are you suggesting
On January 22, 2015 6:17:28 PM EST, John Levine wrote:
>>DMARC leverages the Mail From identity, so I don't see how independent
>HELO checks can be relevant.
>
>If you look at sections 2.3 and 2.4 of RFC 7208, a reasonable
>interpretation is that you check the HELO identity, and if you get a
>"de
On January 22, 2015 5:47:42 PM EST, Franck Martin
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>- Original Message -
>> From: "Michael Jack Assels"
>> To: dmarc@ietf.org
>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:20:35 PM
>> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] questions on the spec, was ... and two more
>tiny nits, while I'm at it
>DMARC leverages the Mail From identity, so I don't see how independent HELO
>checks can be relevant.
If you look at sections 2.3 and 2.4 of RFC 7208, a reasonable
interpretation is that you check the HELO identity, and if you get a
"definitive policy" result, you're done and return that to the
On 01/22/2015 09:46 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Jack Assels"
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 12:00:58 PM
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] questions on the spec, was ... and two more tiny
nits, while I'm at it
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 12:48:0
- Original Message -
> From: "Michael Jack Assels"
> To: dmarc@ietf.org
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:20:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] questions on the spec, was ... and two more tiny
> nits, while I'm at it
>
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 14:46:59 CST,
> Franck Martin wrote:
>
On January 22, 2015 3:46:59 PM EST, Franck Martin
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>- Original Message -
>> From: "Michael Jack Assels"
>> To: dmarc@ietf.org
>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 12:00:58 PM
>> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] questions on the spec, was ... and two more
>tiny nits, while I'm at it
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 14:46:59 CST,
Franck Martin wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Michael Jack Assels"
> > To: dmarc@ietf.org
> > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 12:00:58 PM
> > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] questions on the spec, was ... and two more tiny
> > nits, while I'm at it
- Original Message -
> From: "Michael Jack Assels"
> To: dmarc@ietf.org
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 12:00:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] questions on the spec, was ... and two more tiny
> nits, while I'm at it
>
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 12:48:03 CST,
> Franck Martin wrote:
>
I’ve reviewed the diff between -12 and -13 and I’m comfortable with the changes.
Mike
From: dmarc [mailto:dmarc-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:28 PM
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] questions on the spec, was ... and two more tiny
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 12:48:03 CST,
Franck Martin wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
> > From: "Murray S. Kucherawy"
> > To: dmarc@ietf.org
> > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 10:27:40 AM
> > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] questions on the spec, was ... and two more tiny
> > nits, while I'm at
- Original Message -
> From: "Murray S. Kucherawy"
> To: dmarc@ietf.org
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 10:27:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] questions on the spec, was ... and two more tiny
> nits, while I'm at it
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy < superu...@
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> I am asking the IESG and the ISE what the process is for making such
> adjustments now.
>
> Mainly my resistance to further change comes from the fact that we've done
> last calls of varying kinds on this document more times than I ca
32 matches
Mail list logo
