Alternative token design.
Boundary=A (Above only)
Literal: The domain owner asserts that an organizational/administrative
boundary exists between the current domain and its parent, meaning the
domain and its parents are not aligned for relaxed authentication. No
boundary exists immediately
On Fri 26/Aug/2022 17:21:09 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote:
Personally, I'm fine with the text here, but I would also be happy
with removal of the BCP 14 key words here, like this:
NEW
If the set produced by the DNS Tree Walk contains no DMARC policy record
(i.e., any indication that there is no such
On Thu 25/Aug/2022 19:43:49 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote:
Maybe this rewording works better?:
Yes, it does!
NEW-2
A Mail Receiver implementing the DMARC mechanism gets the
Domain Owner’s or PSO's published DMARC Domain Owner Assessment
Policy and uses it as an important factor in
We have come to a point in our discussions of
draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis that the basic content and features of DMARC
are stable and have rough consensus. Coupling that with the
expectation, as in the working group's charter, that changes to the
protocol that break interoperability with installed
I'm going to respond to some of this out of order, because I think it
will help the flow.
> We have these situations where the verification result is unambiguous, with
> or without a DMARC policy:
> - A verified identifier that has the same domain as the RFC5322.From address
> is always a PASS.
