On January 22, 2015 6:17:28 PM EST, John Levine jo...@taugh.com 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
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 Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com
wrote:
On January 22, 2015 6:35:59 PM EST, Kurt Andersen kb...@drkurt.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com
wrote:
If I were configuring and SPF verifier to provide an input to
- Original Message -
From: ned+dm...@mrochek.com
To: John Levine jo...@taugh.com
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
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 you get a
On January 22, 2015 1:27:40 PM EST, Murray S. Kucherawy superu...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy
superu...@gmail.com
wrote:
I am asking the IESG and the ISE what the process is for making such
adjustments now.
Mainly my resistance to further change
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 check.
- Original Message -
From: Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com
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:
On January 22, 2015 5:47:42 PM EST, Franck Martin fra...@peachymango.org
wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Michael Jack Assels mjass...@encs.concordia.ca
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:20:35 PM
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] questions on the spec, was ... and two
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com
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
On January 22, 2015 7:13:46 PM EST, Terry Zink tz...@exchange.microsoft.com
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
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 23:52:58 Franck Martin wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
