On 6/16/2020 2:19 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
So you think we should include
https://wiki.asrg.sp.am/wiki/Mitigating_DMARC_damage_to_third_party_mail in
the actual spec?
In essence, with IETF review to update, clarify, extract parts,
simplify, I think there are elements that are candidates as a MU
So you think we should include
https://wiki.asrg.sp.am/wiki/Mitigating_DMARC_damage_to_third_party_mail in
the actual spec?
Brandon
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:26 AM Hector Santos wrote:
> Hi Brandon, some quick points:
>
> 1) I was 100% concentrating on the technical protocol aspects to make
>
Hi Brandon, some quick points:
1) I was 100% concentrating on the technical protocol aspects to make
DMARC protocol complete. DMARC is currently not protocol complete. It
does not address the failure scenarios related to 3rd party
re(signers). It left loopholes that need to be closed. The
ap
When we look at DKIM and the DMARC protocol by exposing the boundary
conditions of the protocol, it helps with laying the groundwork for a
protocol-complete model.
DKIM has three possible signature states:
- NONE (no valid signature)
- 1PS (1st party valid signature, Author.domain == Signer.do
