Re: [dmarc-ietf] AND vs. OR (was Re: wiki vs. list?)

2014-10-27 Thread Brett McDowell
Thanks Doug. I may not agree with your assessment of OAR, but it is good to know you had it in mind. As for TPA-Labels, it’s been a long time since I looked at that proposal and I’ll be brushing up on it between now and IETF91. -Brett > On Oct 27, 2014, at 5:17 PM, Douglas Otis wrote: > >

Re: [dmarc-ietf] AND vs. OR (was Re: wiki vs. list?)

2014-10-27 Thread Douglas Otis
On Oct 27, 2014, at 1:55 PM, Brett McDowell wrote: > Doug, you missed (at least) one option which I will characterize as > “transient trust”. I suggest transient trust could be implemented at scale > (for many use cases) via something like OAR [1] and a companion BCP. > > -Brett > > [1] htt

Re: [dmarc-ietf] AND vs. OR (was Re: wiki vs. list?)

2014-10-27 Thread Brett McDowell
Doug, you missed (at least) one option which I will characterize as “transient trust”. I suggest transient trust could be implemented at scale (for many use cases) via something like OAR [1] and a companion BCP. -Brett [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-original-authres-00

Re: [dmarc-ietf] AND vs. OR (was Re: wiki vs. list?)

2014-10-27 Thread Douglas Otis
On Oct 27, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Mike Jones wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Miles Fidelman > wrote: > Hector Santos wrote: > Hi Kurt, > > If we are going to be picky about logic, then lets consider the symbolic > correctness with short circuiting optimization, and it would be: > >

Re: [dmarc-ietf] AND vs. OR (was Re: wiki vs. list?)

2014-10-27 Thread Dave Crocker
On 10/27/2014 10:30 AM, Mike Jones wrote: > aligned SPF pass OR aligned DKIM pass = DMARC pass +1 And the presence of the alignment requirement is what makes DMARC "more than" either of those individual mechanisms. This is not a small point of additional requirement. That one change imposes th

Re: [dmarc-ietf] AND vs. OR (was Re: wiki vs. list?)

2014-10-27 Thread Mike Jones
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Hector Santos wrote: > >> Hi Kurt, >> >> If we are going to be picky about logic, then lets consider the symbolic >> correctness with short circuiting optimization, and it would be: >> >>DMARC = SPF or DKIM >> >> > > > Am I missing som

Re: [dmarc-ietf] AND vs. OR (was Re: wiki vs. list?)

2014-10-24 Thread Miles Fidelman
Hector Santos wrote: Hi Kurt, If we are going to be picky about logic, then lets consider the symbolic correctness with short circuiting optimization, and it would be: DMARC = SPF or DKIM Am I missing something here? As I understand it, DMARC is MORE than SPF and DKIM. Specifically

Re: [dmarc-ietf] AND vs. OR (was Re: wiki vs. list?)

2014-10-24 Thread Hector Santos
Hi Kurt, If we are going to be picky about logic, then lets consider the symbolic correctness with short circuiting optimization, and it would be: DMARC = SPF or DKIM which can be computed with a plus ('+') not with a caret ('^'). A caret symbolically represents an "exclusive or" logic [

[dmarc-ietf] AND vs. OR (was Re: wiki vs. list?)

2014-10-23 Thread Kurt Andersen
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Hector Santos wrote: > We always know that DMARC always fails on a SPF failure as well. > >DMARC = DKIM + SPF > > So any failure on DKIM or SPF is part of a DKIM failure. If that is not > TRUE, then it needs to be part of the discussion. A SPF failure fails