When I have implemented RFCs in the past, I have found the examples to be
critical to making sure I understand the RFC correctly. Generally, among my
first goals is to ensure I can replicate the examples. There has been enough
back and forth on the list about how the tree walk does/does not wo
On Fri 15/Jul/2022 21:28:09 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On July 15, 2022 6:26:39 PM UTC, "John R. Levine" wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
+1 from me too. Note, though, that the (current) DNS is accidentally correct
most of the time, as far as our Tree Walk is concerned.
On Fri 15/Jul/2022 13:23:20 +0200 Laura Atkins wrote:
On 15 Jul 2022, at 12:02, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Wed 13/Jul/2022 23:51:31 +0200 John Levine wrote:
I went through and looked at all of the "must" and "should", in both upper and
lower case.
A lot of the lower case "must" was saying th
On Fri 15/Jul/2022 18:03:36 +0200 John Levine wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Organizational Domains are defined as PSD+1, and can have DMARC records
I think this would be a good time to review the way relaxed alignment
works in sections 4.5 through 4.8 of the draft.
Alleluia!
Couple of notes below:
On Sat 16/Jul/2022 09:17:54 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
When I have implemented RFCs in the past, I have found the examples to be
critical to making sure I understand the RFC correctly. Generally, among my
first goals is to ensure I can replicate the example
This is about Ale's question about handling the situation where the tree
walk starts on a PSD=y entry:
When the tree walk starts at a PSD=Y record, the appropriate response is to
treat it as a self-contained organization (PSD=N) and force alignment to
STRICT for both SPF and DKIM.
This rule appli
I remain concerned about the often-stated position that the DMARC
specification is OK if it only produces false PASS in rare cases. False
PASS is never OK, and our goal should be to prevent the problem rather than
ignore it.
In RFC 7489, PASS is a consolidation of 8 different trust indicators, bu
On Saturday, July 16, 2022 7:50:04 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> Alleluia!
>
> Couple of notes below:
>
> On Sat 16/Jul/2022 09:17:54 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > When I have implemented RFCs in the past, I have found the examples to be
> > critical to making sure I understand the RFC cor
On Saturday, July 16, 2022 7:16:12 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Fri 15/Jul/2022 18:03:36 +0200 John Levine wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2022, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> >> Organizational Domains are defined as PSD+1, and can have DMARC records
> >
> > I think this would be a good time to re
It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
>I think the proposed change is incorrect. To pick a real example, gov.uk is a
>PSD with a DMARC record. It's one that I expect will add psd=y once the tag
>is assigned.
>
>There is no benefit from preventing gov.uk from sending mail and having it
>pass
On Sat 16/Jul/2022 16:43:02 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Saturday, July 16, 2022 7:50:04 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote>>
[...]
A mail receiver receives an email with 5322.From domain = example.com,
5322.MailFrom domain = example.com, and a DKIM signature with d =
signing.example.com. _d
On Sat 16/Jul/2022 17:34:24 +0200 John Levine wrote:
It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
I think the proposed change is incorrect. To pick a real example, gov.uk is a
PSD with a DMARC record. It's one that I expect will add psd=y once the tag
is assigned.
There is no benefit from preventi
On Saturday, July 16, 2022 11:56:04 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Sat 16/Jul/2022 17:34:24 +0200 John Levine wrote:
> > It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
> >> I think the proposed change is incorrect. To pick a real example, gov.uk
> >> is a PSD with a DMARC record. It's one that I e
It appears that Alessandro Vesely said:
>>> No, it's not an accident. We designed the tree walk based on our knowledge
>>> of the way people publish DMARC records.
>I don't understand this unwearying opposition irrespective of the
>argument. If you do a tree walk NOW (which is why I said cur
On Saturday, July 16, 2022 11:39:31 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Sat 16/Jul/2022 16:43:02 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 16, 2022 7:50:04 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote>>
> >
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> A mail receiver receives an email with 5322.From domain = example.com,
>
15 matches
Mail list logo
