On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 11:48:48 PM Brandon Long wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 12:54 PM Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 12:47 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 9:48 AM Kurt Andersen (b)
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>> *I filed issue 22 after observing a discu
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
Registries make RSEP requests all the time. They're tedious and fairly
expensive, but the process is straightforward.
Is this something that could be within the remit of the dmarc-wg if we
wanted to pave the way with ICANN across the board?
I bel
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 1:44 PM, John Levine wrote:
> In article <91efb193-9a81-4626-92ca-bf116826f...@uniregistry.link> you
> write:
>
> This is the relevant text from
> >https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/
> agreements/agreement-approved-31jul17-en.html
>
> But the paragraph at the
In article <91efb193-9a81-4626-92ca-bf116826f...@uniregistry.link> you write:
>Contractual changes.
Not really.
This is the relevant text from
>https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approved-31jul17-en.html
But the paragraph at the end of that section, Exhibit A,
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 12:47 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 9:48 AM Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
>
>> *I filed issue 22 after observing a discussion today on another list:*
>>
>> Pursuant to an email thread on the mailop list, we may want to consider
>> how (or if) to do somethi
In article you write:
>> I think _dmarc as a TXT record is fairly well known. Is there anything
>> that would specifically prohibit this?
>
>gTLDs are not permitted to place TXT records in their zones.
That's mostly right. There is detailed language in the registry contracts about
what's allowe
Hi,
My appologies for spamming everybody, but considering that this is a
mailing list that works on DMARC, testing DMARC related issues seems
appropriate.
I am sending this email from a domain that advertises p=reject DMARC
policy. My From address should be rewritten to be a @dmarc.ietf.org
Here's what I saw reported on it:
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
dkim=pass header.i=@ietf.org header.s=ietf1 header.b=bJFPnWzx;
dkim=pass header.i=@ietf.org header.s=ietf1 header.b=BcDgnOt9;
dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@gmail.com
header.s=20161025
I understand we now have the DMARC workaround test up in this list.
That means that "from" addresses should get rewritten if they identify
domains with DMARC p=reject. Let's check that out.
This message is from my usual computer.org address, and shouldn't get
rewritten. It should say
sender:
