[dmarc-ietf] PSL vs. Tree Walk and Failure Reports, was Re: DMARC agenda for IETF 116 -- and do we need one?

On 3/10/23 3:08 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: although I'm back as an editor of the failure reporting I-D, that file is almost final and I can't think of anything to be discussed live about it.  I haven't registered for 116. Off the top of my head, and in light of the aggregate reports getti

Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSL vs. Tree Walk and Failure Reports, was Re: DMARC agenda for IETF 116 -- and do we need one?

On 3/12/23 07:50, John Levine wrote: It also occurs to me that anyone who sends failure reports also sends aggregate reports, so if you care, you have a way to find out. This made me wonder if everybody requesting failure reports also requests aggregate reports, so I took a look at the data

Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSL vs. Tree Walk and Failure Reports, was Re: DMARC agenda for IETF 116 -- and do we need one?

On 3/14/23 13:18, Scott Kitterman wrote: My expectation is that if you were able to contact the people who made that decision, they'd say they did it because they want information on DMARC failures, which is not what DMARC failure reports give you. They provide details on messages which fail

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC Dependency?

On 3/24/23 3:48 AM, Douglas Foster wrote: Do we know if any entity other than Google is successfully using ARC as an evaluation tool? FWIW: In late 2021 a "German company" reported that it was able to "recover" about 10% of messages that had failed other authentication checks by validating

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling MLMs

On 4/12/23 11:15 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: The MLM can then decide if it is willing to pass the message unmodified to the list, or reject it with an error like "The policies of this list require modification of your message, which violates your domain's apparent policy.  Your submission

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reflections on IETF 117 Conference and DMARC Meeting

On 8/3/23 12:50 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: There is a push to avoid names that might recall racial prejudice, so blacklists are sometimes called blocklists...  The mentioned Appendix D talks about "whitelists of generally recognized forwarding services".  I support sticking to classic names

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC policy discovery and invalid tag exception.

On 10/20/23 12:35 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: (1) As written, the text says (to me) that the handling of a message might change depending on this mapping of a broken value to "none", but only if "rua" is present; absent "rua", the record is treated as junk and DMARC doesn't apply. It's not

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC policy discovery and invalid tag exception.

On 10/25/23 4:25 AM, Matthäus Wander wrote: Olivier Hureau wrote on 2023-10-25 12:56: What about using the error report of RFC 7489 for this purpose instead of aggregate report? ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7489#section-7.2.2 ) I have never seen any error report but I think that

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC policy discovery and invalid tag exception.

On 11/12/23 04:56, Dotzero wrote: Our original intent (I'm one of the folks behind DMARC) was that failure reports would be provided to senders just like aggregate reports. This was before GDPR and privacy concerns did a number on the practice. The companies that provide the service of managi

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Dmarcbis way forward

On 11/12/23 03:59, Neil Anuskiewicz wrote: What is the definition of rough consensus. That is if you took a vote, 100 people voted yes and 3 voted no, the three win? Id there’s a document that states these rules I’d be happy to dig into it. If there’s a rule we should have a vote. Who is entit

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC policy discovery and invalid tag exception.

On Nov 12, 2023, at 1:02 PM, Neil Anuskiewicz wrote: > > Eventually, I’d reckon, Yahoo will stop sending failure reports, rendering > them worthless as nobody you’ve heard of will send them. Even if that were to happen, the standardized format may continue in use / continue to be useful. And

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Inconsistencies in DMARC Aggregate Report XML Schema

On 11/15/23 02:12, OLIVIER HUREAU wrote: As mentioned here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ouSBtpMhD5KJp2osPfUXJktuoMQ/ I have found out that the current reporting ecosystem uses two types of XML Schema D

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis rev 29

On 12/1/23 11:14 AM, Dotzero wrote: On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 10:04 AM Todd Herr wrote: I further think that the best way to produce the next rev of DMARCbis is for the chairs and the editors (and perhaps the ADs) to huddle together and create/update issues in the Github repos

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC with multi-valued RFC5322.From

On 1/11/24 10:46 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: What I recall from when we wrote that was that the first paragraph really means "Most MTAs reject this anyway so it shouldn't even get to your DMARC filter" and the second means "If it does get to you, here's how you should probably react." +

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC with multi-valued RFC5322.From

On 1/17/24 2:56 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: [ Discussion of  what to do with multi-valued From: in messages ] However, since DMARC bears the blame of banning multi-valued From:, it is appropriate for it to say something about the consequences and possible workarounds. DMARC doesn't ban mult

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Review of the dmarc draft documents

On 9/5/24 10:09 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: On 04/09/2024 20:41, Daniel K. wrote: On 7/30/24 17:18, Alessandro Vesely wrote: On Mon 29/Jul/2024 23:46:15 +0200 Daniel K. wrote: 5) Overlap in the examples of dmarcbis and failure-reporting With some wording differences that seem to stem from te

<    1   2