Re: [dmarc-ietf] Example of Indirect Mail Flow Breakage with p=reject?

2023-04-06 Thread Jesse Thompson
On Thu, Apr 6, 2023, at 11:43 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 3:13 PM Jesse Thompson wrote: >> __ >> I just read https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6541/ (or, re-read, I can't >> remember) >> >> I'm struggling to understand how ATPS is significantly better than >>

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Tree walk max depth concern and impact on reporting for domain owners working as expected

2023-04-06 Thread Scott Kitterman
On April 6, 2023 5:51:50 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >On Thu 06/Apr/2023 00:54:15 +0200 Seth Blank wrote: >> I don't feel strongly about N=10, but I do feel strongly that N=5 is >> insufficient. My gut feel is that 6 or 7 is likely more than enough to cover >> all real world examples, bu

Re: [dmarc-ietf] THIS IS ABUSE (no it's not)

2023-04-06 Thread Scott Kitterman
This is not a significant problem in my experience. To the extent this is a problem I think it's primarily a list owner problem, not an Internet protocol problem. Not kidding that if I ran this list I'd probably kick you off the list for awhile to give you a chance to ponder the error of your

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Example of Indirect Mail Flow Breakage with p=reject?

2023-04-06 Thread Baptiste Carvello
Hi, Le 06/04/2023 à 20:05, Dotzero a écrit : > > So Baptiste, what responsibility do you expect these organizations to > undertake? I'm asking this as a serious question, not a rhetorical one. > In all seriousness they are/were focused on addressing their, > potentially existential, problems and

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Example of Indirect Mail Flow Breakage with p=reject?

2023-04-06 Thread Dotzero
On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 9:19 AM Baptiste Carvello < devel2...@baptiste-carvello.net> wrote: > Hallo, > > Le 06/04/2023 à 01:46, Dotzero a écrit : > > > > Not at all. The discussion (and specific post I was responding to) was > > about mailing lists but it also applies more generally. A number of >

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Tree walk max depth concern and impact on reporting for domain owners working as expected

2023-04-06 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On Thu 06/Apr/2023 00:54:15 +0200 Seth Blank wrote: I don't feel strongly about N=10, but I do feel strongly that N=5 is insufficient. My gut feel is that 6 or 7 is likely more than enough to cover all real world examples, but it's a gut feel only and not backed by data. IMHO we could rewrite

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Example of Indirect Mail Flow Breakage with p=reject?

2023-04-06 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 3:13 PM Jesse Thompson wrote: > I just read https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6541/ (or, re-read, I > can't remember) > > I'm struggling to understand how ATPS is significantly better than > delegation via DKIM CNAME records. I can see that it's simpler for a domain > own

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Example of Indirect Mail Flow Breakage with p=reject?

2023-04-06 Thread Baptiste Carvello
Hallo, Le 06/04/2023 à 01:46, Dotzero a écrit : > > Not at all. The discussion (and specific post I was responding to) was > about mailing lists but it also applies more generally. A number of > years ago I saw bounces from a Polish domain. Their policy was that if > the From and the Mail From di