John R Levine writes:
> Discussions on the Mailman list say that users hate wrapped
> messages, because in most MUAs they look really ugly.
It's worse than that. As of 6 months ago, it was impossible to read
wrapped messages (as implemented by Mailman, anyway) in Apple Mail for
iOS.
As for "r
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message Authentication,
Reporting & Conformance Working Group of the IETF.
Title : Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and Indirect
Email Flows
FYI
Please post more reviews...
-
A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-02.txt
has been successfully submitted by Franck Martin and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name: draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability
Revision: 02
Title: Interoperability Issues Between
I think I've failed to communicate. Yes, the pristine original message
will be appropriately MIME-wrapped, with the list decorations becoming
separate MIME parts, but the MUA is not expected to do anything except
to present the MIME message to the final recipient.
Discussions on the Mailman lis
On 28 Apr 2015 17:04:31 EDT,
"John R Levine" wrote:
> > 4. Because the Sender Domain signature is valid and contains tf= and stf=
> >tags, Recipient validators reconstruct the original message ...
>
> Oh, it's message wrapping. There are easier ways to do that without
> changing DKIM: ha
- Original Message -
> From: "Franck Martin"
> To: "R E Sonneveld"
> > I believe a number of the Mediators, described in par. 3.2 of
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-01, cannot
> > easily be changed. To give an example: recently when I was working for
>
- Original Message -
> From: "Terry Zink"
> To: dmarc@ietf.org
> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 11:26:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Indirect Mail Flow Solution Utility Analysis
>
> > Who knows? Perhaps Yahoo and AOL would suffer "user diaspora" if they
> > kept publishing p=reject an
On 4/28/15 11:35 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> Are we going to say "The big four email providers pushed their problems onto
>> everyone else" ?
> Yes, of course. But as we've seen, we have little ability to push
> back.
Dear John,
Standing up to abusive domains requires a fallback policy
compatibl
- Original Message -
> From: "Rolf E. Sonneveld"
> To: "John Levine" , dmarc@ietf.org
> Cc: superu...@gmail.com
> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 3:21:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Indirect Mail Flow Solution Utility Analysis
>
> Now I think Scott is right that we need to make a step
4. Because the Sender Domain signature is valid and contains tf= and stf=
tags, Recipient validators reconstruct the original message ...
Oh, it's message wrapping. There are easier ways to do that without
changing DKIM: have the list send the message as a single entry MIME
digest. Mailm
On 28 Apr 2015 12:51:42 EDT,
"John R Levine" wrote:
> > This is merely an attempt to find a mechanism whereby DMARC and MLMs could
> > cooperate, up to the point where subscriber Recipient validators could
> > honour an Author domain's p=reject, without removing the original author's
> > mailbox
On 4/28/15 6:44 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 4/25/2015 8:34 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>> Of course, the reality that this is an IETF WG, and what we can
>> do that has effect with high probability is change wire protocols.
>> MUA presentation is outside of our bailiwick,
> Exactly.
>
> Which
> Are we going to say "The big four email providers pushed their problems onto
>everyone else" ?
Yes, of course. But as we've seen, we have little ability to push
back.
R's,
John
___
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listi
> Who knows? Perhaps Yahoo and AOL would suffer "user diaspora" if they
> kept publishing p=reject and MLMs decided to be DMARC-compliant when
> reinjecting messages.
I see a lot of "Yahoo and AOL did this", "Yahoo and AOL don't care", "Yahoo and
AOL pushed their problems onto everyone else", e
On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 6:11 AM [GMT+1=CET], Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> J. Gomez writes:
>
> > That would force DMARC-compliant Mediators to reject (or accept
> > but not resend) incoming email from p=reject domains,
> > irrespective of whether such mail passes or not the initial
- Original Message -
> From: "Scott Kitterman"
> To: dmarc@ietf.org
> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 7:11:14 AM
> Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Indirect Mail Flow Solution Utility Analysis
>
> Another example of a potential solution is receivers amalgamating data from
> across their user base t
- Original Message -
> From: "Murray S. Kucherawy"
> To: dmarc@ietf.org
> Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2015 6:33:52 PM
> Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Ideas for list handling
> Also, I've posted a new one that proposes a way to include in the signature
> some information about message transformations
- Original Message -
> From: "John Levine"
> To: dmarc@ietf.org
> Cc: superu...@gmail.com
> Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 11:11:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Third Party Sender DMARC Adaptations
>
> >As I recall this was considered during the development of DKIM originally,
> >exact
This is merely an attempt to find a mechanism whereby DMARC and MLMs could
cooperate, up to the point where subscriber Recipient validators could
honour an Author domain's p=reject, without removing the original author's
mailbox from the From header.
Unless I've missed something, I don't see how
On 27 Apr 2015 21:29:51 -,
"John Levine" wrote:
> >Even if we were all to concur that altering the From by adding the list is
> >the right way forward here (an intriguing idea at the moment), ...
>
> Just for the record, I haven't been responding to arguments about
> rewriting the From: lin
On 4/27/2015 2:44 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
So it seems to me the points of contention here are:
1) Is the MLM violation of the SHOULD NOT cited above the kind of
violation that we accept based on how "SHOULD NOT" is defined in
RFC2119? It seems to me that it is, especially given how long
On 4/25/2015 8:34 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Of course, the reality that this is an IETF WG, and what we can
> do that has effect with high probability is change wire protocols.
> MUA presentation is outside of our bailiwick,
Exactly.
Which means that an extended thread discussing user beh
On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 12:38:15 PDT,
"Murray S. Kucherawy" wrote:
> Even if we were all to concur that altering the From by adding the list is
> the right way forward here (an intriguing idea at the moment), the question
> of ordering would need to be addressed, and then how that applies to all
> t
On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:44:38 PDT,
"Murray S. Kucherawy" wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:17 AM, Michael Jack Assels <
> mjass...@encs.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:21:04 +0200,
> > "J. Gomez" wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday, April 26, 2015 2:25 AM [GMT+1=CET], Stephen J. Turnb
24 matches
Mail list logo
