9:54:51 +0100 Brotman, Alex wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: dmarc mailto:dmarc-boun...@ietf.org>> On
>> Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
>> Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 6:24 AM
>> To: dmarc@ietf.org<mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
>> Subject:
Hello,
There's currently a ticket that suggests that the requirement for external
validation be removed. Today, if example.com has an RUA that points at
example.net, the latter must create a record as such:
example.com._report._dmarc.example.net TXT "v=DMARC1"
The original thought was that a
> -Original Message-
> From: dmarc On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
> Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 6:24 AM
> To: dmarc@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Discussion - ARC/Extensible Reporting (Ticket #56)
>
> On Wed 02/Dec/2020 20:46:54 +0100 Brotman, Alex
Folks,
While this ticket/enhancement specifically mentions ARC, I could perhaps see
the usefulness in other places. It seems like it would be more beneficial to
create a method by which other documents could provide XML- based "extensions"
to the report. This would allow mechanisms relying
--
Alex Brotman
Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy
Comcast
From: Dotzero
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 7:37 AM
To: Brotman, Alex
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Thoughts on "Senders DMARC" Reports
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 2:17 PM Brotman, Alex
ma
--
Alex Brotman
Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy
Comcast
> -Original Message-
> From: Jesse Thompson
> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 9:51 AM
> To: Brotman, Alex ; dmarc@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Thoughts on "Senders DMARC" Reports
>
I think that could be reasonable. It could make reports noisy though?
--
Alex Brotman
Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy
Comcast
From: dmarc On Behalf Of Masaki Kase
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 7:34 PM
To: Brotman, Alex
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Thou
ports
>
> On 10/14/20 1:17 PM, Brotman, Alex wrote:
> > During a session at M3AAWG50, one of the other participants proposed an
> idea where a sender could optionally send reports to a domain holder when
> they send messages on behalf of that domain.
> >
> > Let's conside
During a session at M3AAWG50, one of the other participants proposed an idea
where a sender could optionally send reports to a domain holder when they send
messages on behalf of that domain.
Let's consider the idea that example.com has properly created SPF/DKIM/DMARC
reports for themselves,
101 - 109 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
