Yes, The test should most certainly define how MX="." and SPF="-ALL"
affect the test. This is why I said that the test needs a more complete
definition, but many were unwilling to even address that part of the
problem.
Even with those modifications, the test is only applicable for names that
are
This is frustrating. NP is a new design and the design issues should
have been discussed before we got to this point. I don't know why so many
people are eager to not define the new technology.
There seems to be an unwillingness to acknowledge the current state of the
email ecosystem. There s
However, by that definition a domain with a Null MX [RFC7505] is an existent
domain for DMARC purposes.
True, but so what? If you want to do a DMARC alignment check, you do it
the same way as for any other domain. For the umpteenth time, DMARC is
not the magic anti-spam bullet, and you conti
I have closed the subject ticket and incorporated relevant text
changes in draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-02,
which will be published on Datatracker as soon as the chairs have a chance
to do so.
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 8:32 PM Steven M Jones wrote:
> On 5/28/21 08:47, Todd Herr wrote:
>
>
> Consensus
I have closed the subject ticket and incorporated relevant text
changes in draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-02,
which will be published on Datatracker as soon as the chairs have a chance
to do so.
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 8:59 PM Steven M Jones wrote:
> On 5/28/21 08:46, Todd Herr wrote:
>
>
> Consensus
I have closed the subject ticket and incorporated relevant text
changes in draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-02,
which will be published on Datatracker as soon as the chairs have a chance
to do so.
On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 4:32 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> Thank you Steve, this confirms size limits are a
I have closed the subject ticket and incorporated relevant text
changes in draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-02,
which will be published on Datatracker as soon as the chairs have a chance
to do so.
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 8:30 PM Steven M Jones wrote:
> On 5/28/21 08:43, Todd Herr wrote:
>
>
> Consensus
I have closed the subject ticket and incorporated relevant text
changes in draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-02,
which will be published on Datatracker as soon as the chairs have a chance
to do so.
The relevant text changes here include clarification of the meaning of the
pct tag as well as a much longer
I have closed the subject ticket and incorporated relevant text
changes in draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-02,
which will be published on Datatracker as soon as the chairs have a chance
to do so.
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 8:29 PM Steven M Jones wrote:
> On 5/28/21 08:43, Todd Herr wrote:
>
>
> Consensus
On Wed 16/Jun/2021 20:02:21 +0200 John Levine wrote:
Let's close ticket #112 and stop.
I agree that the definition given in the PSD is clear enough:
For DMARC purposes, a non-existent domain is a domain for which there
is an NXDOMAIN or NODATA response for A, , and MX records. This
I continue to not understand the defect you're highlighting here.
I think you've expressed yourself primarily in the abstract. Could you
craft a sample message, sample envelope, and sample DNS context that
highlights the problem you're talking about? Maybe then it'll snap into
focus.
On Wed, Ju
11 matches
Mail list logo
