On Sunday, June 12, 2022 10:22:18 PM EDT Douglas Foster wrote:
> Why am I unwilling to move on?
>
> Because I want this document to succeed and actually reduce email-borne
> attacks.
>
> Because stifling of discussion does not lead to consensus. It does,
> however, drag out the process. For t
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 3:22 AM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Because I want this document to succeed and actually reduce email-borne
> attacks.
>
I believe we're all wearing the same team jersey here. Please let's try to
keep that in mind.
> Because stifling o
Why am I unwilling to move on?
Because I want this document to succeed and actually reduce email-borne
attacks.
Because stifling of discussion does not lead to consensus. It does,
however, drag out the process. For those who do not want this process to
succeed, accumulated delay may be almost
Doug,
I believe I have asked you before to provide specific examples of current
domains with records that will cause a problem if assessed via the DMARCbis
approach. If there's a real problem that needs solving, then surely there are
examples of it. If they're none, then how about moving on.
Les' question has returned us to the problem of justifying the tree walk.
We need to document the problems with PSL, but we also need to demonstrate
that the tree walk solves those problems without creating others.
In most cases, the tree walk and PSL will produce the same results, because
they w
It appears that Les Barstow said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>I will respectfully disagree that the “psd” tree walk standard is well-defined
>based on the remainder of my response –
>that the use of the “psd” TLA for the tag is unfortunate/misleading and that
>more specificity is desirable. But having
>the a
Thank you for the history fill-in, John. That does at least explain why we’re
here and not somewhere else.
I will respectfully disagree that the “psd” tree walk standard is well-defined
based on the remainder of my response – that the use of the “psd” TLA for the
tag is unfortunate/misleading a
It appears that Les Barstow said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>[Strong opinion follows]
>
>IMO [from April], determination of a DMARC authority boundary (registrar,
>PSD+1, private registry (+1), or internal subdomain
>boundary) should really be done outside of the DMARC standard altogether – a
>separate DNS
[Strong opinion follows]
IMO [from April], determination of a DMARC authority boundary (registrar,
PSD+1, private registry (+1), or internal subdomain boundary) should really be
done outside of the DMARC standard altogether – a separate DNS lookup not
dependent or centered around DMARC, and one
Todd, as you prepare for the next draft, I want to restate my significant
concerns with the previous draft and subsequent discussions:
1) Private Registres
Private registries are a significant design consideration because they
cause a single DNS path to have two organizational boundaries instead o
10 matches
Mail list logo
