- Original Message -
> From: "John Levine"
> To: dmarc@ietf.org
> Cc: t...@eudaemon.net
> Sent: Monday, February 2, 2015 6:31:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] interoperability draft for review
>
> In addition to other comments:
>
> Section 3.1.2.3 is just wrong. EAI specifically do
- Original Message -
> From: ned+dm...@mrochek.com
> To: "Tim Draegen"
> Cc: "dmarc"
> Sent: Sunday, February 1, 2015 5:58:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] interoperability draft for review
>
> > Hi all,
>
> > Frank, Eliot, and myself have finished up a first cut at the WG’s 1st real
Latest diff is at
https://github.com/dmarc-ietf/id/commit/d7b1a401f3c171c27df926bd6a0c5a2ba06eec9b
May be the xml diff (at then end) is best to read. Github is not very nice with
RFC formatting...
___
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf
Section 3.1.2.3 is just wrong. EAI specifically does not allow for
downgrading of messages in transit from UTF-8 headers to ASCII
headers. ...
Yes not in transit, but the downgrade is likely to happen at the source
be it the human or the MUA (I have not seen an implementation of such
yet and
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Franck Martin
wrote:
> > I don't believe the use of X-Original-From is described in any RFC
> currently.
> > If we're going to talk about it in section 4.3 we need to talk about how
> > it's actually used or refer to some place that does.
>
> it is RFC5703
>
Tha
- Original Message -
> From: "Murray S. Kucherawy"
> To: "Franck Martin"
> Cc: "Tim Draegen" , "dmarc" ,
> ned+dm...@mrochek.com
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:43:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] interoperability draft for review
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Franck Martin
