Dear all,
when DMARC passes, there is no difference between p=reject and p=quarantine.
When DMARC fails validation, this means extra work for humans. This work can
be done by the sending or by the receiving
organization.
With p=quaratine, the sending organization (domain owner) indicates, that
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019, at 1:29 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > A user can then arrange her address book so as to make it clear to the MUA
> > that
> > a class of email addresses are equivalent to one another, in order to avoid
> > meaningless alerts.
>
> What makes you think users want to do this extr
On 6/11/2019 1:01 PM, Дилян Палаузов wrote:
Hello Alessandro,
I'd propose bullets like the following for Section 12.4:
o The authentication status of the message should be visible.
For DMARC policy reject, the failed status will not be visible in the MUA,
because the mail will not rea
On 6/11/2019 8:12 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Mon 10/Jun/2019 22:17:01 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote:
On 6/10/2019 1:17 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Sat 08/Jun/2019 18:49:03 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote:
Except that most users don't actually see that address because these days most
MUAs only di
Hello Alessandro,
> I'd propose bullets like the following for Section 12.4:
> o The authentication status of the message should be visible.
>
For DMARC policy reject, the failed status will not be visible in the MUA,
because the mail will not reach the
recipient. Likewise for the policy
On 6/11/2019 11:38 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Tue 11/Jun/2019 00:41:16 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Monday, June 10, 2019 8:07:25 AM EDT Richard C wrote:
Presumably other PSDs that aren’t brand new will have this problem too? I’m
interested to hear whether we’re on our own or not.
As
On 6/11/2019 11:12 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Mon 10/Jun/2019 22:17:01 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote:
On 6/10/2019 1:17 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Sat 08/Jun/2019 18:49:03 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote:
Except that most users don't actually see that address because these days most
MUAs only d
On Tue 11/Jun/2019 00:41:16 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Monday, June 10, 2019 8:07:25 AM EDT Richard C wrote:
>
>> Presumably other PSDs that aren’t brand new will have this problem too? I’m
>> interested to hear whether we’re on our own or not.
>
> As written, DMARC (RFC 7489) has the opt
On Mon 10/Jun/2019 21:23:26 +0200 Hector Santos wrote:
> On 6/10/2019 4:17 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> On Sat 08/Jun/2019 18:49:03 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote:
>>
>>> Except that most users don't actually see that address because these days
>>> most
>>> MUAs only display the display address.
>>
>
On Mon 10/Jun/2019 22:17:01 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 6/10/2019 1:17 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> On Sat 08/Jun/2019 18:49:03 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote:
>>
>>> Except that most users don't actually see that address because these days
>>> most
>>> MUAs only display the display address.
>>
>>
From: dmarc On Behalf Of Kurt Andersen (b)
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 9:08 PM
To: Scott Kitterman
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSDs in draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 6:31 AM Scott Kitterman
mailto:skl...@kitterman.com>> wrote:
On Friday, June
11 matches
Mail list logo
