On 11/12/20 5:06 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 2:58 PM Jesse Thompson
> mailto:40wisc@dmarc.ietf.org>>
> wrote:
>
> On 11/12/20 3:23 PM, John Levine wrote:
> > You now can put a DMARC
> > record on a name below the org domain to shadow a subtree, but I do
On Thu 12/Nov/2020 22:31:25 +0100 Dave Crocker wrote:
On 11/12/2020 1:23 PM, John Levine wrote:
The semantics are definitely not the same. You now can put a DMARC
record on a name below the org domain to shadow a subtree,
that's why the group should first focus on the semantics it wants/doesn
In article <4266a992-7064-d8cd-660b-a3d1d4098...@wisc.edu> you write:
>On 11/12/20 3:23 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> You now can put a DMARC
>> record on a name below the org domain to shadow a subtree, but I don't
>> think that is a problem that needs to be solved.
>
>I'm confused by this statement.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 2:58 PM Jesse Thompson wrote:
> On 11/12/20 3:23 PM, John Levine wrote:
> > You now can put a DMARC
> > record on a name below the org domain to shadow a subtree, but I don't
> > think that is a problem that needs to be solved.
>
> I'm confused by this statement. Are you
On 11/12/20 3:23 PM, John Levine wrote:
> You now can put a DMARC
> record on a name below the org domain to shadow a subtree, but I don't
> think that is a problem that needs to be solved.
I'm confused by this statement. Are you saying that you can "now" do subtree
shadowing with sp? as in the
On 11/12/2020 1:23 PM, John Levine wrote:
The semantics are definitely not the same. You now can put a DMARC
record on a name below the org domain to shadow a subtree,
that's why the group should first focus on the semantics it
wants/doesn't want, independent of how the semantics are achieved
In article <5bc82960-70a4-3ce2-4e3d-a39dd9743...@wisc.edu> you write:
>If tree walking is a thing that comes to fruition, what does it mean for a
>domain to be an organizational
>domain (in reference to the idea that the DMARC spec will just point to
>another doc to determine the org
>domain)? A
On 11/12/20 10:30 AM, John Levine wrote:
> In article
> you
> write:
>> As another case, would people be surprised that email for the medical
>> center cumc.columbia.edu is a separate system managed by a separate IT
>> group from columbia.edu, and that any authentication for one should not be
>>
In article
you write:
>As another case, would people be surprised that email for the medical
>center cumc.columbia.edu is a separate system managed by a separate IT
>group from columbia.edu, and that any authentication for one should not be
>applied to the other? I don't think this is unique in
