Barry,
sorry if it sounded like I was pushing back. The short version is - no I
don't have any big concerns. But if we discover something, we'll let you
know ASAP.
The longer version:
Regarding #1: what I've seen in our data matches your observation. It is a
small subset of cases where there
On Sat 10/Jun/2023 21:03:00 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
For clarity, I don't think the tree walk should drive a version bump (and we
already went over that, let's resist the temptation to do it again), but if it
did, then I would rather stay with the PSL.
Let's recall the logic we adopted
To the extent we might need it so far, I think the psd= tag is that flag.
Scott K
On June 10, 2023 7:34:59 PM UTC, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>I'd rather add an option to flag some behavior rather than do a version
>bump.
>
>Have to agree with Scott that version bumps take forever.
>(I had a network
I'd rather add an option to flag some behavior rather than do a version
bump.
Have to agree with Scott that version bumps take forever.
(I had a network engineer recently tell me that DNS packets *MUST* be no
larger than 512 bytes - and EDNS0 was 1999?)
tim
On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 3:03 PM Scott
On June 8, 2023 12:58:51 PM UTC, Tobias Herkula
wrote:
...
>
>However, such a fundamental shift in the protocol's architecture warrants a
>clear signifier. I suggest we upgrade our DMARC version string from the
>current state to 'DMARC2.' This upgrade would not only denote the change of
Keep in mind that we have looked at this extensively, and what we've
found is this:
1. Almost all [1] of the DMARC senders out there will see the same
results when recipients look them up using the tree walk as they have
using the PSL. In other words, the change will be different an
*extremely*
Not sure if I am that someone mentioned. In case I am - I'd like to clarify
what I meant;
Without a version change for the tree-walk, I think we (Google) would need
to support both approaches (the old one plus the tree-walk) and based on
what we see - make a best guess which version we should
It appears that Tobias Herkula said:
>However, such a fundamental shift in the protocol's architecture warrants a
>clear signifier. I suggest we upgrade
>our DMARC version string from the current state to 'DMARC2.' This upgrade
>would not only denote the change of SPF
>removal, but also the
