On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
>
> Very helpful - thanks. I think that expressing it in the positive
> "oldest-pass" form makes the point much clearer. Unless there is an outcry
> from the rest of the group, I'd like to change to this terminology.
>
No
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:20 PM, Bron Gondwana
wrote:
> I assume this was the one that you wanted my clarification on?
>
Yes, thanks
> But let's rewrite it as oldest-pass, because that's clearer. Your case:
>
> * ARC 1: cv=none, ams.oldest-pass=0
> * ARC 2: cv=pass,
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018, at 09:50, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> While I wait for Bron's confirmation that my understanding matches his
> (see email from yesterday),
I'll go check on that...
> on Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 8:57 PM, Seth Blank wrote:>>
>> . . .text for . . .
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 14:50 Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> I'm uncomfortable with the terminology implied by the term
> "arc.closest-fail". I think that it is more "ams.closest-fail" or
> "arc.ams-broken". AMS is expected to not verify except in the most recent
> ARC set. Doing so
While I wait for Bron's confirmation that my understanding matches his (see
email from yesterday), on Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 8:57 PM, Seth Blank <
s...@sethblank.com> wrote:
>
> . . .text for . . . arc.closest-fail . . .
>
I'm uncomfortable with the terminology implied by the term
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 12:48 PM, John Levine wrote:
>
> Seems to me this makes some assumptions about the way ARC consumers
> will use ARC chains to decide whether to ignore a DMARC failure.
> Personally, I think the most likely scenario is that they'll look at
> all of the
In article <1514939995.3318165.1222346488.5b169...@webmail.messagingengine.com>
you write:
>Please read my examples again if the problem wasn't clear, because you
>don't get security by imagining the best cases where everyone behaves
>themselves, you get security by imagining that everybody is
While John Levine cited the benefits of the "experimental" approach
taken for EAI
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/gvUecJuYLT9GIh5zbcZ_U9CgNkw),
I'm also biased by the "let's all just play nice" mess that came from
designating incompatible "versions" of SPF as competing
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 8:04 AM, Seth Blank wrote:
>
> . . .for me "experimental" comes from the fact that there are several open
> issues on which there has been lasting discussion within this group with no
> resolution that data from an experiment will quickly shine light
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
>
> 2) The advice that all handlers need to apply a seal to the message, to
> which Bron previously and rather strenuously voiced opposition. I believe
> the decision was to defer on that issue until we've run some
10 matches
Mail list logo