Re: [dmarc-ietf] Not Multiple From: mailboxes, was I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-24.txt

On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 6:12 PM Douglas Foster < dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have been tracking the discussion pretty closely for about three years, > and I have no recollection of any discussion which established that From is > different from Author. On the contrary, we have

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Not Multiple From: mailboxes, was I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-24.txt

I have been tracking the discussion pretty closely for about three years, and I have no recollection of any discussion which established that From is different from Author. On the contrary, we have said that From indicates the person's whose ideas are being presented, which is why authorship is d

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Security considerations - Aggregate reports

Yes, Neil, that is what I thought was communicated by my initial language. Security Considerations are topics that implementers and administrators should give consideration when making risk-based decisions, and this is one that seemed worthy of mention. Since others concluded that I was assertin

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Not Multiple From: mailboxes, was I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-24.txt

On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 2:22 PM Neil Anuskiewicz wrote: > > > On Nov 24, 2022, at 7:10 AM, Dotzero wrote: > >  > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 12:29 PM Douglas Foster < > dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Your solution is straightforward, but I am not sold. >> >> DMARC PASS means t

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Security considerations - Aggregate reports

On Nov 15, 2022, at 7:11 PM, Douglas Foster wrote:General:For a reporting specification, the Security Considerations are by definition any risks of unwanted information disclosures.   So that is where attention needs to be given.Operational experience:  I don't have specific knowledge of the info

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Not Multiple From: mailboxes, was I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-24.txt

On Nov 24, 2022, at 7:10 AM, Dotzero wrote:On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 12:29 PM Douglas Foster wrote:Your solution is straightforward, but I am not sold.DMARC PASS means that the message is free of author impersonation.  This can only be true if all authors are v

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Missing participation from big tech members

> On Nov 21, 2022, at 5:55 AM, Douglas Foster > wrote: > >  > This has nothing to do with MUST mandates. We are trying to write a > document that people will choose to implement. Todd, in particular, has > written several times about the principle that feedback reporting is critical >

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Not Multiple From: mailboxes, was I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-24.txt

On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 12:29 PM Douglas Foster < dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote: > Your solution is straightforward, but I am not sold. > > DMARC PASS means that the message is free of author impersonation. This > can only be true if all authors are verifiable and verified. > This i

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Not Multiple From: mailboxes, was I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-24.txt

On Tue 15/Nov/2022 11:59:42 +0100 John Levine wrote: It appears that Alessandro Vesely said: They still do: 550-5.7.1 [62.94.243.226] Messages with multiple addresses in From: header are 550 5.7.1 not accepted. ht21-20020a170907609500b0078e1e77f443si1407469ejc.418 - gsmtp The quest