On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:52 AM, Bron Gondwana
wrote:
> Instance number please. Less calculation.
>
Agreed.
___
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Instance number please. Less calculation.
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018, at 16:18, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:28 PM, Kurt Andersen (b)
> wrote:>> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:20 PM, Bron Gondwana
>> wrote:>>> __
>>> I assume this was the one that you wanted my clarification on?
>>
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:28 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:20 PM, Bron Gondwana
> wrote:
>
>> I assume this was the one that you wanted my clarification on?
>>
>
> Yes, thanks
>
>
>> But let's rewrite it as oldest-pass, because that's clearer. Your case:
>>
>> * ARC 1:
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 5:50 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> While I wait for Bron's confirmation that my understanding matches his
> (see email from yesterday), on Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 8:57 PM, Seth Blank <
> s...@sethblank.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> . . .text for . . . arc.closest-fail . . .
>>
>
> I'm u
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
>
> Very helpful - thanks. I think that expressing it in the positive
> "oldest-pass" form makes the point much clearer. Unless there is an outcry
> from the rest of the group, I'd like to change to this terminology.
>
No objection
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:20 PM, Bron Gondwana
wrote:
> I assume this was the one that you wanted my clarification on?
>
Yes, thanks
> But let's rewrite it as oldest-pass, because that's clearer. Your case:
>
> * ARC 1: cv=none, ams.oldest-pass=0
> * ARC 2: cv=pass, ams.oldest-pass=1
> * ARC
I assume this was the one that you wanted my clarification on?
On Wed, 3 Jan 2018, at 12:56, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 12:39 AM, Bron Gondwana
> wrote:>> __
>>
>> On Wed, 3 Jan 2018, at 04:34, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
>>> As I went through the edits for
>>> https://tools.
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018, at 09:50, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> While I wait for Bron's confirmation that my understanding matches his
> (see email from yesterday),
I'll go check on that...
> on Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 8:57 PM, Seth Blank wrote:>>
>> . . .text for . . . arc.closest-fail . . .
> I'm uncomf
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 14:50 Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> I'm uncomfortable with the terminology implied by the term
> "arc.closest-fail". I think that it is more "ams.closest-fail" or
> "arc.ams-broken". AMS is expected to not verify except in the most recent
> ARC set. Doing so is not in any way
While I wait for Bron's confirmation that my understanding matches his (see
email from yesterday), on Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 8:57 PM, Seth Blank <
s...@sethblank.com> wrote:
>
> . . .text for . . . arc.closest-fail . . .
>
I'm uncomfortable with the terminology implied by the term
"arc.closest-fail"
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 12:48 PM, John Levine wrote:
>
> Seems to me this makes some assumptions about the way ARC consumers
> will use ARC chains to decide whether to ignore a DMARC failure.
> Personally, I think the most likely scenario is that they'll look at
> all of the signers to see if they
In article <1514939995.3318165.1222346488.5b169...@webmail.messagingengine.com>
you write:
>Please read my examples again if the problem wasn't clear, because you
>don't get security by imagining the best cases where everyone behaves
>themselves, you get security by imagining that everybody is tr
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 12:39 AM, Bron Gondwana
wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2018, at 04:34, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
>
> As I went through the edits for https://tools.ietf.org/htm
> l/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-10#section-5.2.1 I was unable to
> understand the value added by having the "arc.closest-
On Wed, 3 Jan 2018, at 04:34, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> As I went through the edits for
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-10#section-5.2.1
> I was unable to understand the value added by having the "arc.closest-
> fail" listed in the AAR.
Please read my examples again if
As I went through the edits for
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-10#section-5.2.1
I was unable to understand the value added by having the "arc.closest-fail"
listed in the AAR.
Looking back through the list archives, the idea for this pvalue seems to
have come up in mid-Au
15 matches
Mail list logo
