Re: [dmarc-ietf] Another p=reject text proposal

2023-07-13 Thread Barry Leiba
> The issue is not about lists being second class. What lists do to a message > is a privileged function, because > modifying a message can be done maliciously as easily as it can be done > innocently. So the real problem > is that DMARC demoted them from privileged to non-privileged by exposi

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Another p=reject text proposal

2023-07-13 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 6:11 AM Douglas Foster < dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote: > I did not say "life isn't fair" to be rude, but as a call to acknowledge > the reality that exists rather than the reality you wish you had. > So what I'm hearing, again, is "Lists should get with the t

Re: [dmarc-ietf] SMTP Result Codes was -Re: Another p=reject text proposal

2023-07-13 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 3:40 AM Scott Kitterman wrote: > >Google uses 5.7.26 for the purpose (and for SPF and DKIM rejects): > > > >https://support.google.com/a/answer/3726730?sjid=16541570162287939258-NA > > > >Their use of 5.7.26 seems in keeping with IANA - Multiple authentication > >checks fa

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Another p=reject text proposal

2023-07-13 Thread Douglas Foster
I did not say "life isn't fair" to be rude, but as a call to acknowledge the reality that exists rather than the reality you wish you had. We know that a large portion of email is unsolicited, unwanted, or malicious. Consequently, there is no right or certainty of delivery. To get delivery, yo

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Another p=reject text proposal

2023-07-13 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On Thu 13/Jul/2023 10:20:00 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 6:20 AM Douglas Foster wrote: Does anyone believe that things will change if we publish an RFC which says "Verizon Media MUST change to p=none"? I don't. It would be absurd to make such a directed statemen

Re: [dmarc-ietf] SMTP Result Codes was -Re: Another p=reject text proposal

2023-07-13 Thread Scott Kitterman
On July 12, 2023 1:11:37 PM UTC, Todd Herr wrote: >On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 7:30 AM Scott Kitterman >wrote: > >> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 7:04:38 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> > On Wed 12/Jul/2023 12:54:38 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote: >> > > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 3:29:34 AM EDT Ba

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Another p=reject text proposal

2023-07-13 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 6:20 AM Douglas Foster < dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote: > Does anyone believe that things will change if we publish an RFC which > says "Verizon Media MUST change to p=none"? I don't. > It would be absurd to make such a directed statement. I trust you're sim