Steve Atkins writes:
> How much of a barrier to entry to new or small mailing list providers
> (or new domains being used there) does this cause?
That depends on how badly a missing conditional signature "deprecates"
a list.
There are three ways deprecation can happen:
1. By reducing the ris
> On Sep 30, 2015, at 5:39 PM, John Levine wrote:
>
>>> The local signer here must know this message goes to dmarc@ietf.org
>>> an add a signature including "!fs=ietg.org"
>>
>> An average email author cannot be relied on to cause this setting to be
>> made.
>
> Quite correct. I would expect
I would expect conditional signatures to be applied by
large mail systems, using their private list of domains that look like
mailing lists to decide who gets them.
From the past couple of years of discussion, it is clear that all of
the large mail systems already have such a list of domains, s
On 9/30/2015 5:39 PM, John Levine wrote:
> I would expect conditional signatures to be applied by
> large mail systems, using their private list of domains that look like
> mailing lists to decide who gets them.
>
>>From the past couple of years of discussion, it is clear that all of
> the large m
>> The local signer here must know this message goes to dmarc@ietf.org
>> an add a signature including "!fs=ietg.org"
>
>An average email author cannot be relied on to cause this setting to be
>made.
Quite correct. I would expect conditional signatures to be applied by
large mail systems, using t
- Original Message -
> From: "Rolf E. Sonneveld"
> To: "Tim Draegen"
> Cc: "dmarc"
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 7:48:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Last call for WG comments on "Interoperability
> Issues Between DMARC and Indirect Email
> Flows"
>
> Hi, Tim,
>
> on Sep 7t
On 9/29/2015 1:08 PM, John Levine wrote:
> I refreshed this draft so it wouldn't expire. Not very different,
> mostly changed the @fs= to !fs= per Murray's suggestion.
>
> I still think this is the least broken way I've seen to let
> mailing lists coexist with DMARC.
I am going to look at ad
> The local signer here must know this message goes to dmarc@ietf.org
> an add a signature including "!fs=ietg.org"
An average email author cannot be relied on to cause this setting to be
made.
There are multiple levels of knowledge and action this this setting
requires and average end-users ca
John Levine:
I still think this is the least broken way I've seen to let
mailing lists coexist with DMARC.
reads like a good idea.
The local signer here must know this message goes to dmarc@ietf.org
an add a signature including "!fs=ietg.org"
So opendkim in my case has to be extended to look
Hi, Tim,
on Sep 7th, I sent a short review of -05, see
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmarc/current/msg02942.html. I didn't see
any response, the paragraph I suggested to remove (par. 3.2.5) is still present
in -07. Can anyone comment on the suggestion to move section 3.2.5 to some
(fut
> A sender that expects a message to be forwarded might put both a
> conventional DKIM signature and a signature with a !fs tag that
> refers to the domain name of the expected forwarder.
>
> require conventional, full DKIM signatures. Why? It seems to me that any
>DMARC authentication meth
On 9/29/2015 1:08 PM, John Levine wrote:
I refreshed this draft so it wouldn't expire. Not very different,
mostly changed the @fs= to !fs= per Murray's suggestion.
I still think this is the least broken way I've seen to let
mailing lists coexist with DMARC.
I am going to look at adding suppo
On Tue 29/Sep/2015 16:34:44 +0200 Tim Draegen wrote:
>
> The editing team deems this draft as ready for last call review.
Section 4.2 mentions dkim-conditional. (IMHO, the latter should be named
draft-dmarc-dkim-conditional.) Both Section 4.2:
This DKIM
signature would come with t
13 matches
Mail list logo
