Re: [dmarc-ietf] SPF doesn't accommodate third level .name domains?

2022-05-31 Thread David Bustos
On Tue, May 31, 2022, at 1:33 PM, John R Levine wrote: > On Tue, 31 May 2022, David Bustos wrote: >>> Forwarding is pretty broken these days. Even if you had perfect SPF, a lot >>> of your incoming >>> mail would fail DMARC because a lot of DMARC policies depend

Re: [dmarc-ietf] SPF doesn't accommodate third level .name domains?

2022-05-31 Thread David Bustos
John wrote: > It appears that Scott Kitterman said: > >On May 30, 2022 9:50:05 PM UTC, David Bustos wrote: > >>Since I own david.bustos.name, someone forwards da...@bustos.name for me; I > >>presume Verisign does. > >> > >>Lately I think email recei

Re: [dmarc-ietf] SPF doesn't accommodate third level .name domains?

2022-05-31 Thread David Bustos
Scott wrote: > On May 30, 2022 9:50:05 PM UTC, David Bustos wrote: > >Since I own david.bustos.name, someone forwards da...@bustos.name for me; I > >presume Verisign does. > > > >Lately I think email receivers have been quarantining my messages and I > >suspect

[dmarc-ietf] SPF doesn't accommodate third level .name domains?

2022-05-30 Thread David Bustos
Since I own david.bustos.name, someone forwards da...@bustos.name for me; I presume Verisign does. Lately I think email receivers have been quarantining my messages and I suspect the reason is SPF. Specifically, no SPF record is published for bustos.name . I asked Verisign to publish one and