On 11/29/2014 7:04 AM, José Ferreira wrote:
Like is said, they are rare but important. And some domain owners may not adopt
p=reject for that reason.
Jose Borges Ferreira
Domains that publish a p=reject and don 't understand its possible
outcomes, shouldn't be our (IETF protocol standards
- Original Message -
From: Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org
To: José Ferreira jose.ferre...@anubisnetworks.com
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 10:22:13 PM
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC and Bounces (was: Indirect Mail Flows)
José Ferreira writes:
I
- Original Message -
From: José Ferreira jose.ferre...@anubisnetworks.com
To: Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 11:58:32 AM
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC and Bounces (was: Indirect Mail Flows)
Forget about ML. I'm not only
So the edge system generates a bounce message (MDN). Knowing that
RFC5321.MailFrom will .
To be DMARC compliant the RFC5321.HELO/.EHLO name must be align with the
RFC5322.From of the MDN.
Why wouldn't you add a DKIM signature that matches the domain name in
the message From: line? The envelope
- Original Message -
From: Franck Martin fra...@peachymango.org
To: José Ferreira jose.ferre...@anubisnetworks.com
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 7:35:23 PM
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC and Bounces (was: Indirect Mail Flows)
- Original Message
José Ferreira writes:
I think there should be a wider reference to bounces in the
draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base. I know bounces are rare and we try the
most to avoid bounces but it happens and have specific issues that
should be addressed differently or , at least, highlighted.
They are
