It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
>> For your #2 you seem to be saying that if I send no-reply transactional
>> mail, my DNS would look like this:
>>
>> notifiy.bigcorp.com. IN MX 0 . /* we don't receive replies /*
>>IN A 0.0.0.0 /* make the domain exist */
>>
On December 5, 2021 9:54:42 PM UTC, Douglas Foster
wrote:
>It is a relief to finally have this topic open for discussion. The issues
>go deeper than null MX.
>
>The goal is to domain names that the domain owner never uses for
>RFC5321.From addresses. No direct test exists, so there are two
It is a relief to finally have this topic open for discussion. The issues
go deeper than null MX.
The goal is to domain names that the domain owner never uses for
RFC5321.From addresses. No direct test exists, so there are two candidate
substitutes:
- (Relaxed:) A name is rejected if it does
On 2021-12-05 20:40, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
How about if it has a null MX and a DMARC record or DKIM keys?
Remember
that those records are at different names than the MX. ...
There's two ways we could go at this question:
1. A domain that, except for the
On 2021-12-05 20:04, John Levine wrote:
This sounds like local policy again. Personally, I am not crazy about
getting mail that I can't reply to, but my mailbox is full of mail from
my bank and stores from which I have ordered telling me that I can't
reply
to their messages.
banks or
On 2021-12-05 05:13, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Should we modify the definition of non-existent domains so that a
domain that
only has an RFC 7505 null mx record is still considered non-existent?
hope you will not change rules to ignore null MX ?
why is it even a question ?
On 2021-12-05 21:24, John R Levine wrote:
Agreed there's risk in HTML hiding content and showing malicious
things but
that risk has existed before. An updated DKIM authenticator could
help us
understand who did those malicious updates along some forwarding path.
I'm pretty sure that
Agreed there's risk in HTML hiding content and showing malicious things but
that risk has existed before. An updated DKIM authenticator could help us
understand who did those malicious updates along some forwarding path.
I'm pretty sure that changing DKIM is very out of scope for this working
On Sunday, December 5, 2021 2:40:16 PM EST John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
> >> How about if it has a null MX and a DMARC record or DKIM keys? Remember
> >> that those records are at different names than the MX. ...
> >
> >There's two ways we could go at this
It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
>> How about if it has a null MX and a DMARC record or DKIM keys? Remember
>> that those records are at different names than the MX. ...
>There's two ways we could go at this question:
>
>1. A domain that, except for the null mx, would fit the criteria for
On Sunday, December 5, 2021 2:04:20 PM EST John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
> >Should we modify the definition of non-existent domains so that a domain
> >that only has an RFC 7505 null mx record is still considered non-existent?
> How about if it has a null MX and a
It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
>Should we modify the definition of non-existent domains so that a domain that
>only has an RFC 7505 null mx record is still considered non-existent?
How about if it has a null MX and a DMARC record or DKIM keys? Remember that
those
records are at
On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 20:09 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Currently the draft (as did the previous revision) has:
>
> > 3.2.8. Public Suffix Domain (PSD)
> >
> > The term Public Suffix Domain is defined in [RFC9091].
> >
> > 3.2.9. Public Suffix Operator (PSO)
> >
> >
On Sat 04/Dec/2021 22:01:50 +0100 Tim Wicinski wrote:
On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 6:20 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Fri 03/Dec/2021 19:38:26 +0100 Todd Herr wrote:
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 12:40 PM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
That's the only part which breaks existing records. According to the
On Sun 05/Dec/2021 04:23:45 +0100 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On December 4, 2021 10:09:48 PM UTC, Seth Blank
wrote:
On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 1:34 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
I am Ok with adding text of this nature, and I think it's helpful in
explaining to folks approaching DMARC for the first time.
On Sat 04/Dec/2021 23:02:50 +0100 Seth Blank wrote:
On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 10:00 AM John Levine wrote:
It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy said:
This was reported but not sent to the WG. I believe the right disposition
is "Hold for Document Update". Does anyone want to argue for
Count| Bytes | Who
++---
63 ( 100%) | 457155 ( 100%) | Total
15 (23.8%) | 78033 (17.1%) | Alessandro Vesely
11 (17.5%) | 82509 (18.0%) | Murray S. Kucherawy
9 (14.3%) | 53122 (11.6%) | Scott Kitterman
8 (12.7%) | 41910 ( 9.2%) | John
17 matches
Mail list logo
