On 11/18/2021 1:44 PM, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Todd Herr said:
>> It seems to me that DMARC already provides the ability for
>> security.example.edu to ensure that no other part of example.edu can send
>> mail on their behalf. To accomplish this, security.example.edu can today:
>>
>>
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 3:51 PM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Don't the alignment rules allow any DKIM signature for the organization to
> validate any FROM address for the organization -- up, down, or sideways?
>
> To use the sideways example, this means that an R
Don't the alignment rules allow any DKIM signature for the organization to
validate any FROM address for the organization -- up, down, or sideways?
To use the sideways example, this means that an RFC 5322.From address of "
u...@security.example.edu" can be validated for DMARC:
- by SPF PASS on an
It appears that Todd Herr said:
>It seems to me that DMARC already provides the ability for
>security.example.edu to ensure that no other part of example.edu can send
>mail on their behalf. To accomplish this, security.example.edu can today:
>
> - Publish an SPF record listing only hosts under
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 8:11 AM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Do we want to provide a sub-tree alignment option?
>
> Suppose that “security.example.edu” does not want any other part of “
> example.edu” to be sending emails on their behalf, so they want to limit
>
Consensus on Tree Walk?
A comment in the minutes suggested that consensus was forming around Tree
Walk for Policy Discovery. I do not have that impression. Instead, the
"strongly favor" and "strongly oppose" voices seem about equal, with the
balance determined by those who, like myself, are tep
