My apologies for not replying to this sooner.
To give the TL;DR, I think the proposed changes adequately address my
concerns.
"Murray S. Kucherawy" writes:
> In the interests of getting this document on its way, I'd like to suggest
> the following edits in response to Dale's most recent
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 8:21 AM Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 6:52 AM Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
>>
>> I suggest adding it to this paragraph:
>>
>>This document specifies experimental updates to the DMARC and PSL
>>algorithm cited above, in an attempt to mitigate this
On Fri 29/Jan/2021 19:11:56 +0100 I wrote:
I attach a patch.
P.S. It also changed the example slightly. It sounds wrong as is now. Pls
look at that...
Best
Ale
--
___
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
On Fri 29/Jan/2021 17:21:19 +0100 Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 6:52 AM Tim Wicinski wrote:
I suggest adding it to this paragraph:
This document specifies experimental updates to the DMARC and PSL
algorithm cited above, in an attempt to mitigate this abuse.
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 6:52 AM Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> I suggest adding it to this paragraph:
>
>This document specifies experimental updates to the DMARC and PSL
>algorithm cited above, in an attempt to mitigate this abuse.
>
update to DMARC = yes; update to PSL = no
> On Fri, Jan
I suggest adding it to this paragraph:
This document specifies experimental updates to the DMARC and PSL
algorithm cited above, in an attempt to mitigate this abuse.
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 1:44 AM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 5:01 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
>>
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 5:01 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
> Since this is an experiment, Appendix A discusses the updates that
> happen. we don't actually say explicitly "if the experiment is a success,
> the following changes will be made" and perhaps I should add some wording
> like that.
>
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 3:29 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Sat 23/Jan/2021 01:55:05 +0100 Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 3:06 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
> >
> >> Here's the paragraph in question
> >>
> >> To determine the organizational domain for a message under
>
On Sat 23/Jan/2021 01:55:05 +0100 Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 3:06 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
Here's the paragraph in question
To determine the organizational domain for a message under evaluation,
and thus where to look for a policy statement, DMARC makes use
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 6:44 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
> (this is really for Murray)
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 6:25 PM Murray S. Kucherawy
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Looks good to me where it is. I would add "(PSL)", introducing the
>> acronym, right after its first use if we decide to leave it there.
>>
(this is really for Murray)
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 6:25 PM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
>
> Looks good to me where it is. I would add "(PSL)", introducing the
> acronym, right after its first use if we decide to leave it there.
>
> A formatting thing to take care of at some point: Anyplace you
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 4:58 PM Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 4:57 PM Murray S. Kucherawy
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 4:55 PM Kurt Andersen (b)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 3:06 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
>>>
Here's the paragraph in question
Kurt
Since this is an experiment, Appendix A discusses the updates that happen.
we don't actually say explicitly "if the experiment is a success, the
following changes will be made" and perhaps I should add some wording like
that.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 7:58 PM Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> On
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 4:57 PM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 4:55 PM Kurt Andersen (b)
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 3:06 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Here's the paragraph in question
>>>
>>> To determine the organizational domain for a message under
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 4:55 PM Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 3:06 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
>>
>> Here's the paragraph in question
>>
>> To determine the organizational domain for a message under
>> evaluation,
>> and thus where to look for a policy statement,
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 3:06 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> Here's the paragraph in question
>
> To determine the organizational domain for a message under
> evaluation,
> and thus where to look for a policy statement, DMARC makes use of
> a Public Suffix
> List. The process for
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 6:25 PM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 3:05 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
>>
>> Thinking twice, perhaps we don't need to introduce the PSL until Section
3.4.
In that case, strike the last two sentences of the above paragraph.
>>>
>>> It's
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 3:05 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> Thinking twice, perhaps we don't need to introduce the PSL until Section
>>> 3.4.
>>> In that case, strike the last two sentences of the above paragraph.
>>>
>>
>> It's not obvious to me that this is better, but sure, let's discuss it.
>>
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 9:19 AM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 2:31 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>
> > To determine the organizational domain for a message under
>> evaluation,
>> > and thus where to look for a policy statement, DMARC makes use of a
>> > Public
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 5:31 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Tue 19/Jan/2021 07:43:01 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > [...]
>
>
> I guess "[this document]" refers to the RFC number to be. I think it's
> useless
> and can be safely removed, all of the five occurrences of it.
>
> It is
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 1:43 AM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> In the interests of getting this document on its way, I'd like to suggest
> the following edits in response to Dale's most recent message. If the
> working group concurs, we can finally get this out to Last Call.
>
> My goal as an AD
I am happy to postpone the topic in the interest of moving the experiment
forward.
Ticket 97 has been created to discuss it later.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 6:23 PM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 2:11 PM Douglas Foster <
> dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 2:11 PM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No Murray, I was speaking to the PSD document.
>
> PSD's entire purpose is to detect abuse of non-existent organizational
> domains, so the definition of non-existent is crucial to its success.I
>
No Murray, I was speaking to the PSD document.
PSD's entire purpose is to detect abuse of non-existent organizational
domains, so the definition of non-existent is crucial to its success.I
believe the current language will produce false positives, albeit probably
a small number.The
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 4:34 AM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I raised objections to the definition of "non-existent", which never
> received an adequate response before the discussion went silent.
>
> DMARC checks the From header address, which may exist only as
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 2:31 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> I guess "[this document]" refers to the RFC number to be. I think it's
> useless
> and can be safely removed, all of the five occurrences of it.
>
That's fine too.
>> I believe that my strongest critique was that section 1 is
I raised objections to the definition of "non-existent", which never
received an adequate response before the discussion went silent.
DMARC checks the From header address, which may exist only as an
identifier used for mass mailings. These mailings are often sent by an
ESP using an unrelated
On Tue 19/Jan/2021 07:43:01 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
[...]
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 7:16 PM Dale R. Worley wrote:
My apologies for not tending to this promptly.
In regard to the description of the experiments, the result criteria are
rather subjective, but I don't see that as a
In the interests of getting this document on its way, I'd like to suggest
the following edits in response to Dale's most recent message. If the
working group concurs, we can finally get this out to Last Call.
My goal as an AD here is just to get the GenART feedback addressed, but the
text is
Tim Wicinski writes:
> Apologies for the delay on the PSD updates. I sat down with Scott and went
> through your review and made lots of edits
> related to your comments. I actually attached the reply to your email as
> it's been sitting in my editor buffer for a few months too long.
>
> One
On Sat 10/Oct/2020 00:52:14 +0200 Tim Wicinski wrote:
Here's the link to the diff.
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08=draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-09
For a nit:
o Provides controls to mitigate potential privacy considerations
associated with this extension
I don't
Dale
Apologies for the delay on the PSD updates. I sat down with Scott and went
through your review and made lots of edits
related to your comments. I actually attached the reply to your email as
it's been sitting in my editor buffer for a few months too long.
One normative change that I want
Scott Kitterman writes:
> [important discussion clipped for brevity]
> If you want to add it and are confident we aren't diving into a deep,
> deep hole, I don't strongly object. Just let me know what to add.
Well, my review amounted to about 5 pages of ordinary text, and my
follow-up e-mail
33 matches
Mail list logo
