Le 01/04/2024 à 03:36, Seth Blank a écrit :
^^
> In order from most to least contentious:
>
> 1. 8.6. Interoperability Considerations
>
> "It is therefore critical that domains that host users who might post
> messages to mailing lists SHOULD NOT publish p=reject."
> […]
Hopefully
Hi,
Le 23/10/2023 à 19:59, Alessandro Vesely a écrit :
My opinion is that Barry's text is good as is. As far as delimiting a
SHOULD NOT with another SHOULD is legit, this sentence sounds clear to me:
It is therefore critical that domains that host users who might
post messages to
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
Hi,
Le 17/07/2023 à 03:50, Emanuel Schorsch a écrit :
>
> - By default FromMunging remains the practice without special
> information.
> - MailingLists add ARC Headers and an additional header for what the
> unmunged FromHeader was
> […]
> This gives the information needed to evaluators to undo
Hi,
Le 15/07/2023 à 12:22, Douglas Foster a écrit :
[...]
Track 2: Exception Request
[...]
Track 2 benefits:
[...]
- Elimination of From munging is potentially available to all
participants, even those from p=reject domains
This important word here is "potentially". In practice, only an
Hi,
Le 07/07/2023 à 23:58, John R Levine a écrit :
>
> Why is it up to the recipient systems (the ones that do not care) to
> make life easier for lists? Mailing list packages already do lots of
> analysis of bounce messages. How about if they fix their bounce
> processing to recognize DMARC
Hi,
Le 08/07/2023 à 20:24, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
>
> You can equally argue that these receivers are merely following the policy
> advice provided by the sending domain (it has reject right in the name) and
> this problem is entirely generated by sender's inappropriate use of p=reject.
>
>
Hi,
Le 07/07/2023 à 21:09, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
> Doesn't sieve happen during delivery, after the message has been accepted?
> Is so, I don't think it's a useful comparison to make.
>
> The lack of bounce/rejection messages results in messages that vanish and
> undermines the reliability
Hi,
I consider this a step backwards. The MUST requirement on the author
domain finally made it clear, after a lost decade, *who* is responsible
for solving the breakage of indirect mailflows. Problem solving starts
with acknowledging one's responsibilities.
This proposal goes back to a muddy
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
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
Hi,
Le 24/11/2021 à 12:00, Alessandro Vesely a écrit :
ARC implies a reliable global reputation system, which only giant
providers can afford.
Not necessarily. It only imply that the evaluator has some reason to
consider acceptable that this particular message be handled by this
Hi,
> (Direct link to the agenda:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/112/materials/agenda-112-dmarc )
>
> DMARC working group IETF 112 agenda
>
> 3. Bring discussion of indirect email flows to a close.
>Tracking tickets 79, 92, 94, 100, and 122
>We will get to this topic if there's
Hi,
Le 17/10/2021 à 19:43, Alessandro Vesely a écrit :
>
> There is no abuse. MLMs act as submitters. Setting From: should be a
> must.
This all habit of telling other actors what they should or must do has
to stop. This hubris is the original sin of Yahoo, which started all the
trouble.
In
Le 17/10/2021 à 20:05, Grant Taylor a écrit :
On 10/17/21 11:49 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Odd, I thought this message was from you, Ale?
It depends if you are talking about the content or the SMTP
communications path.
They say, DMARC chose the "From" field because it is *user-visible*.
Hi,
I'm happy to see the discussion advancing: we now seem to have consensus
that redesigning mailing lists behind their backs is a bad idea, and
that the existence of From rewriting as an emergency hot-fix does not
preclude looking for more satisfactory solutions. Good work!
Now, I'm
d though some people want it dead, not everybody has to agree.
Standards should stay neutral on this political matter.
>> 2)
>
> The usual rewriting is "Baptiste Carvello *via* IETF". It is shorter
> than MS's "on behalf of", and hence better. The draft shoul
Hi,
I'll just make a few quick points here, as my message from yesterday was
long enough :-)
Le 06/10/2021 à 00:30, Douglas Foster a écrit :
>
> We clearly disagree about whether mailing list SHOULD be a closed
> group.
Indeed we do, but ultimately it doesn't matter that much.
The relevant
anisms fail at least one of the
above requirements. The traditional mechanism blurs the authorship, by
introducing a false sense of *affiliation*. This message is authored by
"Baptiste Carvello", not "IETF" or even "Baptiste Carvello by IETF". I
demand full cr
19 matches
Mail list logo
