On 2022-06-02 05:08, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Sorry, but this is not an SPF issue. David's message arrived at IETF
with a helo name of wforward1-smtp.messagingengine.com, which has a
correct SPF record, and a DKIM signature by d=messagingengine.com.
Perfectly authenticated, then, except for a
All of the spf issues spply to dmarc as well.
.
But I still assert that the answer is that these addresses are intended for
inbound only and that the problem is unsolvable if they are used for
outbound.
Verisign could certainly do something different, but it is not in their
interest to do so.
Thi
On Wed 01/Jun/2022 20:01:58 +0200 John Levine wrote:
It appears that Barry Leiba said:
(Not about Phill's message in particular: his is just the most recent
one to reply to.)
This was a fine topic to ask about, and the early discussion answered
the initial questions -- and pointed out, correc
On Wed 01/Jun/2022 12:42:03 +0200 Douglas Foster wrote:
Yes. But David said that Verisign forwards to your designated server,
rather than operating a mail store.
So j...@smith.name may forward to Hotmail while j...@smith.name may forward
to gmail., and j...@smith.name may forward somewhere else.
On Wed 01/Jun/2022 16:19:10 +0200 Todd Herr wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 6:27 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
The point of domain level authentication, stressed by DMARC by requiring
alignment, is that hosting domains provide mail servers for both incoming
and outgoing messages. The old habit o
It appears that Barry Leiba said:
>(Not about Phill's message in particular: his is just the most recent
>one to reply to.)
>
>This was a fine topic to ask about, and the early discussion answered
>the initial questions -- and pointed out, correctly, that this isn't a
>DMARC issue. The continuin
(Not about Phill's message in particular: his is just the most recent
one to reply to.)
This was a fine topic to ask about, and the early discussion answered
the initial questions -- and pointed out, correctly, that this isn't a
DMARC issue. The continuing discussion is definitely out of scope fo
It looks like VeriSign has hit on the same solution to the personal PKI
problem that I have in the callsign registry and for the same reason: To
get around the problem that a certificate for al...@example.com doesn't
work to authenticate Alice unless she is the holder of example.com.
Building out
On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 6:27 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>
> The point of domain level authentication, stressed by DMARC by requiring
> alignment, is that hosting domains provide mail servers for both incoming
> and
> outgoing messages. The old habit of sending out mail through ISPs had to
> be
>
All ICANN Registry Agreements are accessible here:
https://www.icann.org/en/registry-agreements?first-letter=a&sort-column=top-level-domain&sort-direction=asc&page=1.
Whereas new gTLDs from the 2012 round have a prohibition against adding
specific types of records in the TLD's zone (See Exhibit A,
Yes. But David said that Verisign forwards to your designated server,
rather than operating a mail store.
So j...@smith.name may forward to Hotmail while j...@smith.name may forward
to gmail., and j...@smith.name may forward somewhere else.
Sending on behalf of j...@smith.name requires a hosting
On Wed 01/Jun/2022 05:14:22 +0200 Douglas Foster wrote:
As John observed, there is no way to provide outbound authentication for
these addresses, because authentication is based on domain name (and
changing that would take 100 years to deploy.) m...@smith.name and
jos...@smail.name are likely t
David's goal for the name registration is different from what Verisign
intended. Here is what I have inferred:
Verisign wants to sell personal identity PKI certificates to the masses,
for use with S/MIMIE. A personal PKI certificate requires a subject name
and an owner email address. "first.l
It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
>>Is your position that Verisign should publish SPF records for the .name
>>domains?
>
>If they intend them to be used in email, then I would say yes. If they intend
>third level domain owners such as yourself send email
>from external servers using the se
On May 31, 2022 7:50:44 PM UTC, David Bustos wrote:
>On Tue, May 31, 2022, at 1:33 PM, John R Levine wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 May 2022, David Bustos wrote:
Forwarding is pretty broken these days. Even if you had perfect SPF, a
lot of your incoming
mail would fail DMARC because a lo
On Tue, May 31, 2022, at 1:33 PM, John R Levine wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2022, David Bustos wrote:
>>> Forwarding is pretty broken these days. Even if you had perfect SPF, a lot
>>> of your incoming
>>> mail would fail DMARC because a lot of DMARC policies depend on SPF and SPF
>>> can't deal wit
On Tue, 31 May 2022, David Bustos wrote:
Forwarding is pretty broken these days. Even if you had perfect SPF, a lot of
your incoming
mail would fail DMARC because a lot of DMARC policies depend on SPF and SPF
can't deal with forwarded mail.
I'm talking about outgoing mail, not incoming mail.
On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 1:14 PM David Bustos wrote:
> John wrote:
> > It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
> > >On May 30, 2022 9:50:05 PM UTC, David Bustos wrote:
> > >>Since I own david.bustos.name, someone forwards da...@bustos.name for
> me; I presume Verisign does.
> > >>
> > >>Lately I
John wrote:
> It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
> >On May 30, 2022 9:50:05 PM UTC, David Bustos wrote:
> >>Since I own david.bustos.name, someone forwards da...@bustos.name for me; I
> >>presume Verisign does.
> >>
> >>Lately I think email receivers have been quarantining my messages and I
Scott wrote:
> On May 30, 2022 9:50:05 PM UTC, David Bustos wrote:
> >Since I own david.bustos.name, someone forwards da...@bustos.name for me; I
> >presume Verisign does.
> >
> >Lately I think email receivers have been quarantining my messages and I
> >suspect the reason is SPF. Specifically,
It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
>
>
>On May 30, 2022 9:50:05 PM UTC, David Bustos wrote:
>>Since I own david.bustos.name, someone forwards da...@bustos.name for me; I
>>presume Verisign does.
>>
>>Lately I think email receivers have been quarantining my messages and I
>>suspect the reaso
On May 30, 2022 9:50:05 PM UTC, David Bustos wrote:
>Since I own david.bustos.name, someone forwards da...@bustos.name for me; I
>presume Verisign does.
>
>Lately I think email receivers have been quarantining my messages and I
>suspect the reason is SPF. Specifically, no SPF record is publi
Since I own david.bustos.name, someone forwards da...@bustos.name for me; I
presume Verisign does.
Lately I think email receivers have been quarantining my messages and I suspect
the reason is SPF. Specifically, no SPF record is published for bustos.name .
I asked Verisign to publish one and
23 matches
Mail list logo
