J. Gomez writes:
Why is it better for DMARC to be adapted to indirect email flows,
instead of indirect email flows to be adapted to DMARC?
Because they *can't* be adapted by definition. DMARC p=reject
prohibits indirect mail, and p=quarantine sends it to the spam
bucket.
Or perhaps you're
On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 11:40 PM [GMT+1=CET], Douglas Otis wrote:
Dear DMARC WG,
Now that RFC7489 has been published, there remains several
unresolved problems this WG is charted to resolve, primarily--
1. Addressing the issues with indirect mail flows
Why is it better for DMARC to be
Not yet. I don't think there are any implementations. We were just banging
the idea around. I'm looking at doing one soon for OpenDKIM as an
experimental add-on.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:25 AM, John Bucy jb...@google.com wrote:
Hadn't seen that ID, cool! Is there any test data available?
Hadn't seen that ID, cool! Is there any test data available?
cheers
john
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy superu...@gmail.com
wrote:
There was one proposed:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-dkim-list-canon-00
This working group will be discussing this and
On Friday, March 20, 2015 09:56:15 PM J. Gomez wrote:
On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 11:40 PM [GMT+1=CET], Douglas Otis wrote:
Dear DMARC WG,
Now that RFC7489 has been published, there remains several
unresolved problems this WG is charted to resolve, primarily--
1. Addressing the issues
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:56 PM, J. Gomez jgo...@seryrich.com wrote:
Why is it better for DMARC to be adapted to indirect email flows, instead
of indirect email flows to be adapted to DMARC?
What does provide more value to end users at large: indirect email flows
to be kept old-style, or the
