Re: [dmarc-ietf] phase 1 is done

2016-05-10 Thread Kurt Andersen (b)
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Tim Draegen wrote: > The WG will now move ahead to phase 2: > > https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/trac/wiki/MilestoneTwoWiki > > When discussing methods and techniques that address an interoperability > issue, please explicitly reference the issue from the > d

[dmarc-ietf] Proposal to adopt ARC documents into the WG (toward phase 2 milestone)

2016-05-10 Thread Kurt Andersen (b)
Updated the subject line to start a new thread. . .sorry for the confusion. On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Tim Draegen wrote: > >> The WG will now move ahead to phase 2: >> >> https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/trac/wiki/Mileston

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposal to adopt ARC documents into the WG (toward phase 2 milestone)

2016-05-10 Thread Steven M Jones
On 05/10/2016 10:23, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > Updated the subject line to start a new thread. . .sorry for the > confusion. > > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) > wrote: > > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Tim Draegen

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposal to adopt ARC documents into the WG (toward phase 2 milestone)

2016-05-10 Thread Dave Crocker
On 5/10/2016 11:08 AM, Steven M Jones wrote: which shows that there's substantive work to be done - and that work can only benefit from the broader community that an IETF WG represents. Perhaps it will aid consideration if a candidate list of such work is offered? A summary of issues raised

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposal to adopt ARC documents into the WG (toward phase 2 milestone)

2016-05-10 Thread John Levine
>Should DMARC add a policy setting for whether the domain owner feels that >ARC should be used to bypass regular DMARC evaluation? Please, no. One approach to what we can oversimplify as the mailing list problem is to do it from the sending end, with the sender using something like conditional do

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposal to adopt ARC documents into the WG (toward phase 2 milestone)

2016-05-10 Thread Dave Crocker
On 5/10/2016 5:23 PM, John Levine wrote: Should DMARC add a policy setting for whether the domain owner feels that ARC should be used to bypass regular DMARC evaluation? Please, no. One approach to what we can oversimplify as the mailing list problem is to do it from the sending end, with the

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposal to adopt ARC documents into the WG (toward phase 2 milestone)

2016-05-10 Thread John R Levine
On the other hand, for purely transactional domains, it could be simpler for the recipient to be able to easily find that ARC-ish mechanisms are not authorized. As is invariably the case here, except sometimes. It is my impression that there are forwarders that break DMARC signatures (MS Exch