Dne 21. 7. 2023 v 16:34 Murray S. Kucherawy napsal(a):
On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 6:31 PM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
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
c
On Fri 21/Jul/2023 17:18:50 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On July 21, 2023 3:14:58 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Maybe one day there will be a DMARC with batteries included, where implementers
ship default configurations which are effective out of the box. While I don't
know how to get th
On July 21, 2023 3:14:58 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>On Fri 21/Jul/2023 10:22:06 +0200 Matthäus Wander wrote:
>> Murray S. Kucherawy wrote on 2023-07-08 02:44:
>>> "SHOULD" leaves the implementer with a choice. You really ought to do what
>>> it says in the general case, but there might
On Fri 21/Jul/2023 10:22:06 +0200 Matthäus Wander wrote:
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote on 2023-07-08 02:44:
"SHOULD" leaves the implementer with a choice. You really ought to do what
it says in the general case, but there might be circumstances where you could
deviate from that advice, with some p
On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 6:31 PM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 t
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 1:22 AM Matthäus Wander wrote:
> > "SHOULD" leaves the implementer with a choice. You really ought to do
> > what it says in the general case, but there might be circumstances where
> > you could deviate from that advice, with some possible effect on
> > interoperability.
On Fri 21/Jul/2023 09:35:32 +0200 OLIVIER HUREAU wrote:
Instead, I see language that drives people to fixate on the 1% of traffic
that has a DMARC policy with p=reject.
Indeed: I caution everyone about making assumptions based on what we
think we know, and extending those assumptions to the
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote on 2023-07-08 02:44:
"SHOULD" leaves the implementer with a choice. You really ought to do
what it says in the general case, but there might be circumstances where
you could deviate from that advice, with some possible effect on
interoperability. If you do that, it i
> Instead, I see language that drives people to fixate on the 1% of traffic
> that has a DMARC policy with p=reject.
> Indeed: I caution everyone about making assumptions based on what we
think we know, and extending those assumptions to the entire Internet.
There are things we can study (by,
