Can you find a commercial product that can configure a rule which says,
"Don't worry about DMARC if Mail from = bounceaddtess@listdomain and the
MailFrom address produces SPF PASS"?
Simple enough rule. If vendors understood what we want them to understand,
they would allow creation of multipe-att
I don't take DMARC as a certain result to be used in isolation, but clearly
a quorum evaluators do, and hence the mailing list problem that has caused
such consternation.
If we want to diminish their numbers, we have to communicate very
differently than RFC 7489.
My problem with your favorite lin
On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 6:21 PM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps you can clarify what you think DMARC is.
>
> Apparently a significant number of evaluators think that "DMARC Fail with
> p=reject always means unwanted mail". Or to use Michael Hammer's
> langu
Perhaps you can clarify what you think DMARC is.
Apparently a significant number of evaluators think that "DMARC Fail with
p=reject always means unwanted mail". Or to use Michael Hammer's
language, "DMARC Fail with p=reject means the domain owner wants it
rejected so I will reject it."These
Douglas Foster writes:
> Baptiste's proposal is clearly the easiest to implement: Admins inform the
> group that IETF is going to stop munging on a specific date. After that date,
> subscribers are switched to digest mode if the MLM or the user detects
> problems. Admins switch them back when
Wei Chuang writes:
> 2) The proposed language calls out "“alumni forwarders”, role-based email
> aliases, and mailing lists" for consideration by receivers. How should
> receivers be aware that traffic failing authentication should be reconsidered?
> Mailing-lists sometimes uses RFC2919 List-id
It appears that Barry Leiba said:
>> - An attacker sends 10 messages that maliciously impersonates a
>> big bank. With help from DMARC p=reject, the evaluator blocks
>> them all. The attacker follows up with 10 messages that
>> maliciously impersonate a major university. The stupid
>> evaluat
Hi,
Le 19/07/2023 à 19:38, Alessandro Vesely a écrit :
>
> Oops, I had in mind that lists modify messages. Some of them don't,
> that way they don't need From: munging. It is quite common too.
>
> Let me reword the question: Are there lists that modify messages and
> don't munge From:?
What
On July 19, 2023 5:38:08 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>On Wed 19/Jul/2023 15:25:17 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On July 19, 2023 7:27:00 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>>> On Wed 19/Jul/2023 08:20:14 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:27 AM Douglas Foster <
It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
>>That assumes there are lists that don't munge From:. Is that real today?
>
>Most of my list mail is from lists that don't.
>
>Scott K
Even for lists that do change the From: they do it in a zillion
different ways that depend on the goals of the list and t
Alessandro Vesely skrev den 2023-07-19 19:38:
Let me reword the question: Are there lists that modify messages and
don't munge From:?
Authentication-Results: mx.junc.eu (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit
key)
header.d=ietf.org header.b="M78Nxm+h"; dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
he
On Wed 19/Jul/2023 15:25:17 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On July 19, 2023 7:27:00 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Wed 19/Jul/2023 08:20:14 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:27 AM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
1) For evaluators that
On 7/19/2023 8:10 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 12:27 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> How do you determine that an evaluator is enforcing DMARC
"against lists"?
That assumes there are lists that don't munge From:. Is that real
today?
I wasn't aware th
On July 19, 2023 7:27:00 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>On Wed 19/Jul/2023 08:20:14 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:27 AM Douglas Foster <
>> dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 1) For evaluators that enforce DMARC against lists, are they willing
On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 12:27 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> > How do you determine that an evaluator is enforcing DMARC "against
> lists"?
>
> That assumes there are lists that don't munge From:. Is that real today?
>
I wasn't aware that this munging had become a standard, or even common.
It's
Trying to stay within Barry's guidelines, my original comment was about
this list, but with an eye to how it can be generalized.
In any specific case, the message stream from a list like our own should
be identifiable by seeing expected values for:
- MailFrom address = list bounce address
- DKIM
On Wed 19/Jul/2023 08:20:14 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:27 AM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
1) For evaluators that enforce DMARC against lists, are they willing to
consider any concessions to list traffic? If so, do they favor an
e
17 matches
Mail list logo
