cular way should not be surprising. And given that historical
interpretation, we now have an interoperability problem that needs to be
documented appropriately.
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
__
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
___
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
ge-id in message evaluation,
but have given up.
Back to your original question: My comment about Message-ID: was not
about whether it was particularly useful for DKIM/DMARC, but more about
how its semantics are reflected in mailing list email messages.
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.epistem
On 19 Jun 2020, at 16:15, Pete Resnick wrote:
[Offlist]
Crap. My deepest apologies to Dave. I am very embarrassed by fat
fingering that. It is not the worst private thing I've ever sent to a
list, but still.
(*Sigh*)
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections
[Offlist]
On 19 Jun 2020, at 15:07, Dave Crocker wrote:
Please re-read my text...
If there is a specification ... I apologize that I don't know what it
is.
These little passive-aggressive turns of phrase are not useful habits to
teach to others on the list.
pr
--
Pete Resnick https
We seem to be having a discussion with some premises misunderstood, so
let me attempt to answer your message upside down, in hopes of undoing
that:
On 19 Jun 2020, at 15:07, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 6/19/2020 12:02 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 19 Jun 2020, at 13:38, Dave Crocker wrote
mediator asserts itself more visibly to the
recipient is probably the degree to which it looks more like a
publisher and less like a simple relaying service.
And eventually, I would contend, less like a mediator.
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenu
On 19 Jun 2020, at 11:40, Pete Resnick wrote:
The presumption of all Mediator-type transactions was that the
receiving email client was to deal with the message (the thing with
the identical Message-ID) with its original semantics, adding only
Resent-*: or List-*: fields to add the semantic
something I could possibly support IFF the originating domain
allows it. There would other things to consider to tie the loose
ends,
but the #1, would be the rewrite=1 tag.
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
___
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
On 17 Jun 2020, at 13:27, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 6/17/2020 9:56 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
No, the semantics of From: have not changed generally. It's that some
mailing lists have to change the semantics of From: in the face of
the inability of DMARC to express the semantics that they want
t has forced arbitrary changes
that have made the semantics ambiguous as compared to the past.
I'd hope rfc5322bis will recognize those changes.
I sure hope not.
Meanwhile, if we gather consensus on how to do it better, it'd be fair
to write it down, no?
Assuming you can gather con
On 2 Jun 2020, at 13:29, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 6/2/2020 11:12 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 2 Jun 2020, at 13:01, Dave Crocker wrote:
There's no reason that DMARC couldn't have included the sender or
tried to have some kind of
PRA like spf v2... but that's not the goal.
But the Sender
om if 5322.sender isn't present. But maybe I'm missing something.
Please explain.
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
___
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
for decreased interoperability says to me this
isn't a good idea.
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
___
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
On 8/30/14 12:52 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Pete Resnick writes:
Good point:
Mar 2015Complete draft specification on DMARC improvements to better
support indirect email flows
Up to this point the discussion on the dmarc mailing list has focused
on alternative channels (Otis's TPA
On 8/28/14 8:52 AM, IETF Secretariat wrote:
URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/charter/
Tim/Ned [Ccing WG]:
While I think the milestones that appear in the wiki are great for
internal WG management (and in fact I think you could even add more of
them), I think for the
On 8/29/14 12:35 PM, Tim Draegen wrote:
On Aug 29, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Pete Resnickpresn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
Tim/Ned [Ccing WG]:
While I think the milestones that appear in the wiki are great for internal WG management (and in
fact I think you could even add more of them), I think
On 8/29/14 1:09 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Not clear to me what draft on DMARC improvements... means. Is it a
spec, a design discussion, or what?
Good point:
Mar 2015Complete draft specification on DMARC improvements to better
support indirect email flows
I'm also wondering about
On 8/29/14 1:08 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
Is complete draft the usual way these things are done now? It used
to be
that you list WGLC, LC, RFC published for each.
Different groups do them different ways. I'm partial to just listing the
complete draft, since LC and RFC published are dependent on
On 8/29/14 1:19 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Merely as a possible tool for figuring out the major milestones, perhaps
the external choices should wait for the more detailed inward set of
dates? Those will give a clearer sense of the wg focus on different
topics at different times.
I do prefer
On 8/24/14 9:09 PM, Tim Draegen wrote:
So, the WG will maintain an official focus that will track the
milestones to allow for wider participation. That said, work on items
that are ahead of the official focus (or even behind if something is
overlooked and important) is most definitely
Folks, can I ask that you please remove i...@ietf.org from the recipient
list if you want to have discussion that doesn't pertain to the charter
itself.
I'm hoping to recruit a prospective chair in the next few days to start
moderating the discussion on the DMARC list itself while we're still
On 7/10/14 12:36 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
--
COMMENT:
--
The existing base specification is being submitted as an Independent
Submission to become an
On 7/5/14 7:59 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
On 7/3/2014 11:04 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
As the working group develops solutions to deal with indirect mail
flows, it will seek to maintain the end-to-end nature of existing
identifier fields in mail, in particular avoiding solutions that
require
On 7/5/14 11:09 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
On 7/5/2014 3:20 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
The current text is now in front of the IESG for internal review.
Assuming we approve it for external review on Thursday, you will see a
announcement soliciting comments. A simple comment, with specific
suggested
On 7/3/14 at 11:26 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 11:22:18AM -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
Oh, I forgot one thing:
The working group will seek to maintain
the viability of stable domain-level identifiers in mail, and will
document existing mail streams that do
On 7/3/14 12:20 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 7/3/14 at 11:26 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 11:22:18AM -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
Oh, I forgot one thing:
The working group will seek to maintain
the viability of stable domain-level identifiers in mail, and will
document
On 7/3/14 9:15 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
On 7/3/2014 8:32 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
As the working group develops solutions to deal with indirect mail
flows, it will seek to maintain the end-to-end nature of existing
identifier fields in mail, in particular avoiding solutions that
require
On 7/1/14 11:00 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
I've looked over the small amount of mail posted about the draft charter
and do not see any changes mandated.
Nothing mandated, but here are some changes that I think clarify and/or
simplify. You can find a diff here:
[Bcc'ing dmarc, but directed to ietf-822, since that's where we appear
to be having the discussion for the moment.]
These ideas about mailing lists have been rattling around in my head
these past couple of days, and they're based on a bunch of design
assumptions. So I figured I'd post my list
30 matches
Mail list logo
