I think the failure of this thinking is the idea that there's any
intent going on at cuny.edu, and we need to remind ourselves that it's
a *hierarchy*, and that that word means something specific. In a
hierarchy you expect to inherit things *through* the hierarchy,
without skipping levels. No one
I don't see that we have the right to tell cuny.edu and others that we have
sacrificed them to the greater good. We know exactly what their
configuration means under RFC 7489, and we need to make it supportable.
We have talked about three ways of guessing the organizational domain:
- PSL
- Tree
Count| Bytes | Who
++---
40 ( 100%) | 398053 ( 100%) | Total
6 (15.0%) | 40240 (10.1%) | Alessandro Vesely
5 (12.5%) | 91685 (23.0%) | Douglas Foster
5 (12.5%) | 31894 ( 8.0%) | Scott Kitterman
5 (12.5%) | 27581 ( 6.9%) | John R Levi
On Sun 26/Feb/2023 07:13:04 +0100 Barry Leiba wrote:
What does the proposal add that's useful? The current situation
appears to be what we'd want: with the tree walk, ret.bmcc inherits
the p=quarantine from bmcc. If it wants otherwise, it can specify it
explicitly. Saying it wants to inherit
On Sun 26/Feb/2023 00:19:57 +0100 Tim Wicinski wrote:
On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 5:29 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Fri 24/Feb/2023 21:21:15 +0100 Brotman, Alex wrote:
Currently:
_dmarc.ret.bmcc.cuny.edu NULL
_dmarc.bmcc.cuny.edu "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; fo=1; rua=mailto:
dmarc_...@emaildefens
