Re: [dmarc-ietf] Aggregate Reporting draft 7 - Server identity

2023-01-11 Thread Barry Leiba
Doug, mystified or not, the fact is that no one else is supporting your suggestion. I don't see that we have any chance at getting consensus for this, and I see the conversation as over. It's really important that we wrap up dead discussions and move on: we cannot spend our time and effort endles

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Aggregate Reporting draft 7 - Server identity

2023-01-10 Thread Douglas Foster
You have good reason to be proud of what you accomplished with incomplete information and limited resources. But that does not address the question of whether we should provide more complete information in the future. I am really quite mystified by the resistance on this issue. Is there a con

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Aggregate Reporting draft 7 - Server identity

2023-01-08 Thread Dotzero
On Sun, Jan 8, 2023 at 2:17 PM Douglas Foster < dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote: > re: "These are not forensic reports" > The purpose of aggregate reports is to define WHERE a problem occurs, > while the purpose of a forensic report is to define WHY a problem occurs. > (e.g. "Why do my

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Aggregate Reporting draft 7 - Server identity

2023-01-06 Thread John Levine
It appears that Brotman, Alex said: >-=-=-=-=-=- >I believe I read that thread, and don’t believe I saw a consensus that this >should change. > >https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/uAcbvK49M8qI5o36qnJnyg_hULY/ > >Reviewing that again still suggests no consensus, perhaps even leaning towar

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Aggregate Reporting draft 7 - Server identity

2023-01-06 Thread Brotman, Alex
related to DMARC”. -- Alex Brotman Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast From: dmarc On Behalf Of Douglas Foster Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 6:36 AM To: IETF DMARC WG Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Aggregate Reporting draft 7 - Server identity Alex, I was referring to

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Aggregate Reporting draft 7 - Server identity

2023-01-05 Thread Douglas Foster
- > > Alex Brotman > > Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy > > Comcast > > > > *From:* dmarc *On Behalf Of * Douglas Foster > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 4, 2023 6:35 AM > *To:* IETF DMARC WG > *Subject:* [dmarc-ietf] Aggregate Reporting draft 7 - S

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Aggregate Reporting draft 7 - Server identity

2023-01-04 Thread Brotman, Alex
ietf] Aggregate Reporting draft 7 - Server identity The new draft only asks for IP address, not HELO or Reverse DNS name. HELO is valuable forensic information that cannot be obtained any other way. Server identity becomes particularly important when the MailFrom identity fails SPF or matches the RFC

[dmarc-ietf] Aggregate Reporting draft 7 - Server identity

2023-01-04 Thread Douglas Foster
The new draft only asks for IP address, not HELO or Reverse DNS name. HELO is valuable forensic information that cannot be obtained any other way. Server identity becomes particularly important when the MailFrom identity fails SPF or matches the RFC5322.From domain. Why was these fields omitted