I think you are making far too much of this. I've been implementing this as
we go and it's pretty trivial.
Scott K
On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 10:27:37 PM EDT Douglas Foster wrote:
> The response below went out prematurely and incomplete, but I hope you can
> see where we I was going. We have
Before we picked 5, we looked and that's sufficient to capture all the
boundaries. It's not a problem. This was discussed on the list, I don't
recall when.
Scott K
On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 9:55:56 PM EDT Douglas Foster wrote:
> Suppose a FROM address domain has the lower-bound of 5 segments
The response below went out prematurely and incomplete, but I hope you can
see where we I was going. We have an ever-changing algorithm as we try to
do a desk analysis of the problem.
One of my purposes for the outline was to see how many indicators we will
need, by identifying what actions we w
John and Ale have talked about what role, if any, should be given to
analyzing the common substring between an RFC5322.From domain and a
verified SPF or DKIM domain. During my ruminations last night, I gained
some clarity around that question and wanted to highlight those
conclusions. They simpl
Suppose a FROM address domain has the lower-bound of 5 segments, and that a
verified DKIM signature exists using a child domain somewhere below that,
perhaps with 7 segments.
Are the names automatically considered to be aligned, without a tree walk,
because a private registry boundary will not occ
No, I think the RFC 7489 algorithm is much simpler than this one.
John was adamant that we only needed one indicator. Then he conceded that
we need two. Now he thinks we need three. Ale and I said early on that we
thought we needed four.
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 7:47 AM Scott Kitterman
wrote:
I gather then that your claim is that RFC 7489 isn't implementable. Is that
right?
Scott K
On March 22, 2022 11:11:40 AM UTC, Douglas Foster
wrote:
>We need an algorithm with enough detail to ensure that it can be
>implemented consistently, something closer to the RFC for SPF rather than
>RFC
We need an algorithm with enough detail to ensure that it can be
implemented consistently, something closer to the RFC for SPF rather than
RFC 7489.
For example, it is only when you get into the weeds do you discover that
error handling for the primary walk needs to be different than error
handlin
Doug,
I think you are mistaken. The Organizational Domain is what is used to test
alignment. If you have suggested changes from what's in DMARCbis06, I think it
would be easier if you made specific recommended changes.
Also, the level of detail in the current draft is very similar to what is
We have significant functional differences between the two tree walks,
which are lost or ignored in the current prose. This lack of precision
has also allowed us to overlook error handling, which is different between
the two types of tree walk.
I have provided a rough cut of the primary tree wa
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting
& Conformance WG of the IETF.
Title : Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and
Conformance (DMARC)
11 matches
Mail list logo
