Re: [dmarc-ietf] milestone 1 *almost* done

Douglas Otis writes: > Sorry for not being clear. In the example given, this assumes a > third-party service might be for a small outfit operating on a thin > budget using an accounting firm to send messages on their behalf. The use case is well-understood. I wish you'd stop assuming people

Re: [dmarc-ietf] milestone 1 *almost* done

On Nov 25, 2014, at 2:49 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Douglas Otis writes: > >> Rather than issuing click through agreements to in essence say "All >> your email must represent direct transactions from the provider." >> they could offer users a friendly SMTP compatible and safe solution >>

Re: [dmarc-ietf] milestone 1 *almost* done

On 11/21/2014 12:56 PM, Tim Draegen wrote: WG, The work found here: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/trac/wiki/MilestoneOneWiki ..is almost complete. However, there is a note (reinforced by feedback during the recent in-person meeting) to recast the collected issues in terms of RFC 5598.

Re: [dmarc-ietf] milestone 1 *almost* done

Douglas Otis writes: > Rather than issuing click through agreements to in essence say "All > your email must represent direct transactions from the provider." > they could offer users a friendly SMTP compatible and safe solution > that provides MUA configurations that expose aligned Sender hea

Re: [dmarc-ietf] milestone 1 *almost* done

On Nov 22, 2014, at 12:43 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Douglas Otis writes: > >> There are serious concerns being ignored regarding email captured in >> DMaRC feedback. Things like Intuit invoices or mailing-list >> conversations are being misdirected simply because DMaRC incorrectly >> as

Re: [dmarc-ietf] milestone 1 *almost* done

Douglas Otis writes: > There are serious concerns being ignored regarding email captured in > DMaRC feedback. Things like Intuit invoices or mailing-list > conversations are being misdirected simply because DMaRC incorrectly > assumes a sender/recipient relationship when general use email >

Re: [dmarc-ietf] milestone 1 *almost* done

On Nov 21, 2014, at 10:56 AM, Tim Draegen wrote: >> On Nov 21, 2014, at 1:54 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld >> wrote: >> >> does this mean that any work/solutions will not be discussed on this list, >> before a reviewable draft is ready? If so, please add me to the discussion >> group. > > No, I wa

Re: [dmarc-ietf] milestone 1 *almost* done

> On Nov 21, 2014, at 1:54 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld > wrote: > > does this mean that any work/solutions will not be discussed on this list, > before a reviewable draft is ready? If so, please add me to the discussion > group. No, I was not clear. Discussion of solutions will happen on the maili

Re: [dmarc-ietf] milestone 1 *almost* done

On Nov 21, 2014, at 1:50 PM, Douglas Otis wrote: > > On Nov 21, 2014, at 9:56 AM, Tim Draegen wrote: > >> WG, >> >> PS. A group of editors spontaneously formed during the in-person meeting. >> The group will tackle Milestone 2 — which is to transform issues learned and >> documented in Mil

Re: [dmarc-ietf] milestone 1 *almost* done

On 11/21/2014 06:56 PM, Tim Draegen wrote: WG, The work found here: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/trac/wiki/MilestoneOneWiki ..is almost complete. However, there is a note (reinforced by feedback during the recent in-person meeting) to recast the collected issues in terms of RFC 5598.

Re: [dmarc-ietf] milestone 1 *almost* done

On Nov 21, 2014, at 9:56 AM, Tim Draegen wrote: > WG, > > PS. A group of editors spontaneously formed during the in-person meeting. > The group will tackle Milestone 2 — which is to transform issues learned and > documented in Milestone 1 + proposed solutions for each into a real > reviewa

[dmarc-ietf] milestone 1 *almost* done

WG, The work found here: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/trac/wiki/MilestoneOneWiki ..is almost complete. However, there is a note (reinforced by feedback during the recent in-person meeting) to recast the collected issues