Re: [dmarc-ietf] Some Proposed Language for a New pct Tag Defintion

2021-08-01 Thread Douglas Foster
Ale, I tried to explain my objections in the original post. However, it is a very important question, so I am happy to revise and extend my points.Forgive me for being long-winded , I am trying to be thorough because I see problems at many levels. Doug Foster Random Guessing can increase t

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Some Proposed Language for a New pct Tag Defintion

2021-08-01 Thread Douglas Foster
>From munging can be a de-facto standard, but I don't think it can ever obtain IETF endorsement. As far as I can tell, IETF has never endorsed BATV or SRS, or any other encoding scheme which lengthens the local-part of the address. I expect >From munging to encounter the same obstacle. We have a

[dmarc-ietf] Messages from the dmarc list for the week ending Sun Aug 1 06:00:10 2021

2021-08-01 Thread John Levine
Count| Bytes | Who ++--- 15 ( 100%) | 122169 ( 100%) | Total 4 (26.7%) | 49661 (40.6%) | Douglas Foster 4 (26.7%) | 18123 (14.8%) | John Levine 3 (20.0%) | 15642 (12.8%) | Alessandro Vesely 1 ( 6.7%) | 19470 (15.9%) | Todd Herr 1

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Some Proposed Language for a New pct Tag Defintion

2021-08-01 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On Sun 01/Aug/2021 01:47:12 +0200 Douglas Foster wrote: My core objection is the partial-enforcement algorithm.   I cannot believe that it would be wise for me, or any other receiver, to implement that algorithm. Why not? What's wrong with it? if DMARC fail and (p=quarantine or p=reject) t