Re: [dmarc-ietf] slides for Friday session

My first post to this list was to highlight this aspect of our charter [1] because I was concerned it was being overlooked: "It will also provide technical implementation guidance and review possible enhancements elsewhere in the mail handling sequence that could improve DMARC compatibility." Is

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Indirect email flows

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Matt Simerson wrote: > > On Nov 12, 2014, at 12:59 PM, Franck Martin > wrote: > > > >> Could I request the list admins, to drop the subject tagging and the > footer on this list? And if possible remove the removal of the HTML? > > +1 The mailing list is here as

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Indirect email flows

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Monday, November 10, 2014 07:25:56 PM Elizabeth Zwicky wrote: > > OK, so I've dived into Yahoo's incoming metadata to look at what fails > DMARC > > and why. Conclusion 1: I cannot automatically tell the cases apart with > any > > accur

Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base feedback

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Brandon Long wrote: > I don't think his changes in 5.6.1 would change anything we do. We > currently require a single From header with a single address with a valid > domain on all messages (not restricted to DMARC). RFC 6854 as used for EAI > downgrades shouldn

Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base feedback

On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >We would like to apply the most strict policy, but doesn't that > >conflict > >with the p=none policy, where Domain Owners can start gathering reports > > > >without having to bother about impact on the disposition of their mail? > > > >Fu

Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base feedback

I support making no change in dmarc-base-05 that might change how current mailbox providers implement dmarc-base. But to the extent this collection of contributors would like to see the recommendations/requirements in section 5.6.1 updated to better harmonize with related RFC's, I support Trent's

Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base feedback

I also support the -06 changes as you have explained them Murray. Add me to the list of people speaking in opposition to the proposal what would change "authentication" to "authorization". Brett McDowell | br...@brettmcdowell.com | @brettmcdowell | +1 (413) 404-5593 On Tue,

Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base revision submitted

Thanks Murray. That was a really important step. You continue to carry the bulk of the email security standardization load on your shoulders, and it is greatly appreciated! Cheers, -Brett On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Colleagues, > > With apologies once again

Re: [dmarc-ietf] wiki vs. list?

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Hector Santos wrote: > My apology to you if you felt offended by my comments. It wasn't > intended. Thank you for saying so Hector. I appreciate it. > >>> Hector, don't confuse your inability to put forward a coherent argument >>> with my inability to under

Re: [dmarc-ietf] wiki vs. list?

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Hector Santos wrote: > > > I suspect there was a purpose for that argument that might still be >> relevant >> to our work even though the argument doesn’t seem to be supported, but >> > I’m not seeing it yet. > > Thats unfortunate, because based on your marketing

Re: [dmarc-ietf] AND vs. OR (was Re: wiki vs. list?)

ote: > > > On Oct 27, 2014, at 1:55 PM, Brett McDowell <mailto:brettmcdow...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> Doug, you missed (at least) one option which I will characterize as >> “transient trust”. I suggest transient trust could be implemented at scale >> (for many

Re: [dmarc-ietf] wiki vs. list?

I’m not sure what the relevance of this particular debate is, but in hopes of moving us forward, I offer another data point. Please remember that you can deploy DMARC and get exactly the desired result from your DMARC deployment, without deploying any DKIM infrastructure. Example: you can push

Re: [dmarc-ietf] AND vs. OR (was Re: wiki vs. list?)

Doug, you missed (at least) one option which I will characterize as “transient trust”. I suggest transient trust could be implemented at scale (for many use cases) via something like OAR [1] and a companion BCP. -Brett [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-original-authres-00

Re: [dmarc-ietf] wiki vs. list?

> On Oct 17, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Ned Freed wrote: > > So let me see if I understand you correctly. You were surprised that I posted > a query (not an assertion) about something being in scope in my capacity > as a WG participant rather than as chair. And you are concerned that > there be effective

Re: [dmarc-ietf] wiki vs. list?

(note: this is my first post to dmarc@ietf.org but I participated in the original creation of DMARC and I look forward to participating in this WG) On Oct 10, 2014, at 11:07 AM, ned+dm...@mrochek.com wrote: > > >>> -Original Message- >>> From: dmarc [mailto:dmarc-boun...@ietf.org] On B