Re: [dmarc-ietf] Issue opened: Use a four-valued token for the four roles of a DMARC policy

Where in the document are you proposing this text be added? Scott K On August 28, 2022 9:04:18 PM UTC, Douglas Foster wrote: >I have stewed on the issues more while mowing the lawn. The language >below will address my concerns without changing the PSD=value token. > > > >Certainty >

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Issue opened: Use a four-valued token for the four roles of a DMARC policy

I have stewed on the issues more while mowing the lawn. The language below will address my concerns without changing the PSD=value token. Certainty Certainty can be achieved by adding constraints to the “psd=n” token: “Some organizations have subtrees within their DNS structure that

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Issue opened: Use a four-valued token for the four roles of a DMARC policy

Thanks for that, Doug. The part that’s missing is in relation to this: “keeping in mind that we’ve already established that the current PSD= tag is needed in only a very small number of domains”. If things were truly open-ended, there might be more agreement with you. But the fact that, using

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Issue opened: Use a four-valued token for the four roles of a DMARC policy

The PSL has two problems: - It removes control of relaxed authentication boundaries from the domain owners. - It is subject to errors which can cause both false PASS and false FAIL - The possibility of errors means that evaluators cannot be certain whether PASS and FAIL can be trusted. This is

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Issue: Domain Owner policy in Section 5

+1, but the concern of not informing suspicious parties about local policies should then be risen in aggregate-reporting, Security Considerations (currently blank), shouldn't it? The current wording makes an attempt to distinguish overrides due to authentication failures, such as mailing

[dmarc-ietf] Today's pull request

Scott's changes about when and how to apply policy Neil's typos cleaned up references to the other I-D's Please review the changes before accepting it. Regards, John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Issue: Domain Owner policy in Section 5

+1 to Scott's suggestion. Michael Hammer On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 5:49 PM Barry Leiba wrote: > I’m happy with Scott’s suggestion. > > Barry > > On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 5:11 PM Scott Kitterman > wrote: > >> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 1:43:49 PM EDT Barry Leiba wrote: >> > > On Wed 24/Aug/2022

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Issue opened: Use a four-valued token for the four roles of a DMARC policy

+1 to Scott and John's comments. I read it and do not find a compelling value equation for including. Michael Hammer On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 10:41 PM John Levine wrote: > It appears that Scott Kitterman said: > >> - If you disagree with Doug's proposal, please clearly and concisely > >>

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Mailing List message authentication

I agree with Scott. We do need to be that blunt given what people have thrown out there because DMARC doesn't say it's not ok. One thing we have been firm about is that if there isn't a DMARC record it isn't DMARC. For "other things", people are free to go off and experiment with consenting

[dmarc-ietf] Messages from the dmarc list for the week ending Sun Aug 28 06:00:04 2022

Count| Bytes | Who ++--- 64 ( 100%) | 637633 ( 100%) | Total 14 (21.9%) | 108934 (17.1%) | Barry Leiba 11 (17.2%) | 66001 (10.4%) | John Levine 7 (10.9%) | 127360 (20.0%) | Douglas Foster 6 ( 9.4%) | 41011 ( 6.4%) | Scott Kitterman 5