Catching up on my mail after a laptop disaster, ...
In article <4600949.rz9u5RyGOV@l5580> you write:
>I think comments should be free-form. If we want data that can be machine
>parsed, we should specify it.
>
>I think the above works in ABNF terms. It's:
>
>Authentication-Results:"
Taking a step back, iprev uses the policy ptype. It's also based on local
interpretation of DNS data. Why doesn't policy work for dnswl just like for
iprev?
Scott K
___
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
On Thu 01/Aug/2019 07:27:10 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 9:40 PM Scott Kitterman
> wrote:
>
>> Can we discuss this choice? I know this has been implemented already, so
>> I'm at least slightly reluctant to do the semi-standard lets rename
>> existing stuff dance
Hello Hector,
you state, that a domain owner can request p=quarantine over p=reject because
of concers of false positives.
Why shall one have concers about false positives, but will not be willing to
fix them?
I do repeat myself, but the way to fix the false positives is to introduce
On 7/31/2019 11:32 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 6:37 AM Tim Wicinski mailto:tjw.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
From our end user point of view, I'm against abolishing
quarantine, even with its current shortcomings.
Why's that?
-MSK, also hatless
My opinion.
Hello,
yes, it requires different receivers to know each other capabilities.
Here a new proposed wording, if policy quarantine will be kept:
Messages, subject to the quarantine policy, directed to a single recipient that
does not support the concept of
quarantining, can be either accepted and
On Wed 31/Jul/2019 12:46:00 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Would it be possible to add a result of "quarantine"? Having dmarc=fail
>> and dns.policy=quarantine leaves a good deal of interpretation to the MDA.
>> If one could write dmarc=quarantine, a simple string search or regular
>>
