Neil, this is a delayed reply to your earlier email about my implementation
efforts, and whether I am on-board with the Tree Walk. The response has
been delayed while I investigated the algorithm.
I began by building a cache of DMARC policies using the PSL and my mail
stream as input.
The
On Oct 16, 2023, at 6:48 PM, Neil Anuskiewicz wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 16, 2023, at 6:43 PM, Seth Blank
>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm sorry, to what are you referring? I co-chair the M3AAWG technical
>> committee, and am unaware of any advocacy for relitigating DBOUND...
Seth, I based my statement on
It appears that Neil Anuskiewicz said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>See section V
Enaging with DBOUND is not the same thing as advocating that DBOUND do anything
specific.
Everyone agrees the PSL is awful, including the people who maintain
it. But there's no agreement at all about what would be better.
See section VOn Oct 16, 2023, at 6:43 PM, Seth Blank wrote:I'm sorry, to what are you referring? I co-chair the M3AAWG technical committee, and am unaware of any advocacy for relitigating DBOUND...On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 6:36 PM Neil Anuskiewicz 40marmot-tech@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:M3AAWG is
On Oct 16, 2023, at 6:43 PM, Seth Blank wrote:I'm sorry, to what are you referring? I co-chair the M3AAWG technical committee, and am unaware of any advocacy for relitigating DBOUND...On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 6:36 PM Neil Anuskiewicz 40marmot-tech@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:M3AAWG is advocating
I'm sorry, to what are you referring? I co-chair the M3AAWG technical
committee, and am unaware of any advocacy for relitigating DBOUND...
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 6:36 PM Neil Anuskiewicz wrote:
> M3AAWG is advocating for DBOUND as most of you likely know. Does it seem a
> viable alternative?
M3AAWG is advocating for DBOUND as most of you likely know. Does it seem a
viable alternative? We could sure use the support of M3AAWG. How could we earn
their support or are they committed to DBOUND?
Perhaps once we prove that DMARCbis works they’ll reconsider.
Neil
> On Oct 16, 2023, at 4:53 PM, Dotzero wrote
> https://www.m3aawg.org/ had sessions on DMARCbis, DKIM replay, etc. at their
> meeting in Brooklyn last week. I did not attend. A number of ISPs, mailbox
> providers, ESPs, etc. participate. I don't see it as something IETF organizes.
>
>
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 7:14 PM Neil Anuskiewicz wrote:
> Outside of the official business of the WG, is there a mechanism for
> educating people about DMARCbis. Why is it important? What problems does it
> solve? What’s different? I think some of it might even surprise some
> people: You mean
Outside of the official business of the WG, is there a mechanism for educating
people about DMARCbis. Why is it important? What problems does it solve? What’s
different? I think some of it might even surprise some people: You mean we have
been relying on files of public suffix domains all this
On October 16, 2023 9:20:26 PM UTC, Neil Anuskiewicz
wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 16, 2023, at 11:00 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On October 16, 2023 5:53:13 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely
>>> wrote:
On Fri 13/Oct/2023 16:35:43 +0200 Neil Anuskiewicz wrote:
Thank you, sir.
> On Oct 16, 2023, at 11:00 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>
>
>> On October 16, 2023 5:53:13 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>>> On Fri 13/Oct/2023 16:35:43 +0200 Neil Anuskiewicz wrote:
>>> Thank you, sir. That’s part of the reason to cautiously transition away
>>> from the PSL. It has
On October 16, 2023 5:53:13 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>On Fri 13/Oct/2023 16:35:43 +0200 Neil Anuskiewicz wrote:
>> Thank you, sir. That’s part of the reason to cautiously transition away from
>> the PSL. It has the feel of a throwback to a time when people thought the
>> number of
On Fri 13/Oct/2023 16:35:43 +0200 Neil Anuskiewicz wrote:
Thank you, sir. That’s part of the reason to cautiously transition away from
the PSL. It has the feel of a throwback to a time when people thought the
number of total users would be in the hundreds or thousands. Wouldn’t a
cautious
14 matches
Mail list logo
