In article ,
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>I think at the time DKIM went to Proposed Standard, one could've made the
>same argument about it as well, especially on your last two points.
Sorta kinda. At that point there wasn't any question that people
would use it to tie messages to domain names,
OK cool, totally agreed with all of these points.
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Gene Shuman wrote:
>
>> (resending from my personal account to avoid the spam filter)
>>
>> I think there's still something missing from the draft wrt f
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Gene Shuman wrote:
> (resending from my personal account to avoid the spam filter)
>
> I think there's still something missing from the draft wrt fail/invalid.
> In section 5.2.2, it says that gross violations MUST be capped in the
> manner specified. This seems t
(resending from my personal account to avoid the spam filter)
I think there's still something missing from the draft wrt fail/invalid.
In section 5.2.2, it says that gross violations MUST be capped in the
manner specified. This seems to only encompass what we were previously
considering cv=invalid
> On Jul 10, 2017, at 12:53 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Tim Draegen wrote:
>> On Jul 5, 2017, at 6:33 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>
>> Based on discussions with Seth and Gene earlier, it sounds like the industry
>> has sadly not taken up the habit of
For those on the list, but not planning to attend IETF99 next week in
Prague, I wanted to let you know about a couple of activities which are
planned:
1) Hackathon - Saturday (July 15: 0800 - 2100 CEST) and Sunday (July 16:
0900 - 1330 CEST); project details can be seen at
https://www.ietf.org/reg
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Seth Blank wrote:
> I think it needs to be specified. Receivers construct DMARC reports in a
> known manner, they shouldn't need to guess how to get the appropriate
> information out of ARC headers in an intermediary-implementation-specific
> manner. The spec shoul
