On Thu 03/Jun/2021 05:45:33 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I don't understand what "demeaning a domain's policy" means.
I meant to say that p=quarantine; pct=0 is to be considered a strict policy to
all effects. Saying so should prevent reasoning something like "Oh, they said
quarantine,
Hello folks,
During our interim call last week the topic of extensions within the DMARC
aggregate report came up. There was a discussion about how to best introduce
these, but also how they might be best used. I noted three cases that I could
see today; ARC, PSD, and BIMI. And indeed we hav
It appears that Alessandro Vesely said:
>On Thu 03/Jun/2021 05:45:33 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> I don't understand what "demeaning a domain's policy" means.
>
>I meant to say that p=quarantine; pct=0 is to be considered a strict policy to
>all effects. Saying so should prevent reasonin
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 6:17 PM John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Alessandro Vesely said:
> >On Thu 03/Jun/2021 05:45:33 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> >> I don't understand what "demeaning a domain's policy" means.
> >
> >I meant to say that p=quarantine; pct=0 is to be considered a stri
On 5/5/2021 11:48 AM, Todd Herr wrote:
We would like to achieve rough consensus on this section of text by
Friday, May 21.
Apologies. I've only just been able to review this text. Attached are
suggested changes, done as a Word document with revision tracking turned on.
It might appear th
On 5/5/2021 11:48 AM, Todd Herr wrote:
We would like to achieve rough consensus on this section of text by
Friday, May 21.
Apologies. I've only just been able to review this text. Here's a link
to suggested changes, done as a Word document with revision tracking
turned on:
https://w
(this time without an attachment...)
On 5/5/2021 11:48 AM, Todd Herr wrote:
We would like to achieve rough consensus on this section of text by
Friday, May 21.
Apologies. I've only just been able to review this text. Here's a link
to suggested changes, done as a Word document with revision
On 6/3/2021 7:50 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
(this time without an attachment...)
Interesting. My own MUA is not showing a received copy of any of my
postings of the message through the IETF list. Hence the re-sends,
guessing at why not.
Finally looked at the IETF's IMAP archive and there the
