On Jun 13, 2014, at 7:18 AM, "Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
> In any case, now I wonder what they're really trying to do. They can
> check for "p=reject" without sending *any* mail.
That's not an integration test. It's all automated. The answer you want is,
"Can I make money now?" This is how yo
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Brandon Long wrote:
> I think many of the folks on this list don't use email the way that the
> vast majority of people do.
>
The longer I work in email, the less I feel as though there's any consensus
in how it is used, beyond the bare minimum required for it to
There's probably no point in coding a patch unless you feel the people
responsible for the codebase are likely to apply it. That's a lot of effort
down a rathole, especially since some number of the intended audience feel
that it's inappropriate to ask them to change anything in their software.
It
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Joseph Humphreys <
jhumphr...@salesforce.com> wrote:
> It's a problem if the service provider wants to offer bounce processing by
> using their own domain for the return path, which I think is not uncommon.
> That puts SPF out of alignment.
>
I think the differen
On Thursday, April 17, 2014 5:44 PM, Joseph Humphreys wrote:
> At one time I suggested adding a feature to list domains that could be
> considered "in alignment" with yours. So if a domain owner wanted to
> authorize an email service provider, they could just add something to their
> DMARC policy
I was intentionally vague, since several distinct changes have been
proposed along those lines. That's definitely one of them. The general
objection covers all of them.
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 06:59:41AM -0700, John Sweet wrote:
&
very quickly. I'm not clear on how SPF alignment prevents
this.
My humblest apologies if you already covered the particulars in an earlier
message, and I missed it.
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 4/10/2014 8:59 AM, John Sweet wrote:
>
>> I see
I see the competing "answers" breaking down differently:
- Mailing list implementation/practice must change to support From-header
alignment
- Never publish a p=reject policy for a domain with human (non-automated)
senders
"Whitelist known-good MLs" seems to me to be an effective way to elimina
I'm not sure whether the feature being requested is a) providing the sender
with another DMARC tag to specify that they only want aggregate reports to
include failures, or b) receivers, at their discretion, being able to
choose to only report failures.
I can imagine a valid use case for a), but no
MAAWG newcomers tend to gravitate to these discussions, so that's part
of the reason why it feels like the same questions are asked over and
over.
FWIW, I knew the answer to the question I asked; I didn't see it in
Franck's slides and wanted to hear it answered. I thought some of the
people in the
On Sep 11, 2013, at 2:54 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> So I'd like to ask for comment about an effort to move RFC 5617 to Historical
> status.
Yes, please.
Maybe a wake? I feel like there should be a wake. ADSP, we hardly knew ye.
___
dmarc mailing list
11 matches
Mail list logo
