On Sun, 2014-06-08 at 17:21 -0400, Larry Finch via dmarc-discuss wrote:
> On your most recent message my Mac client says “Unable to verify
> message signature”. Clicking on “Show details” it says that the
> certificate is not valid, email address mismatch.
Thanks for that information. That's a dis
>On your most recent message my Mac client says �Unable to verify message
>signature�. Clicking on
>�Show details� it says that the certificate is not valid, email address
>mismatch.
Alpine said it was signed, with a note at the bottom about the signing
address. Thunderbird said it had no signat
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 10:22 PM, David Woodhouse via dmarc-discuss <
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:
> > DMARC really sounded good when it was first defined and spec’d. And it
> > DOES prevent spoofing a Yahoo or AOL address, but does nothing to
> > prevent spoofing a Yahoo or AOL user, (or Chase,
On Jun 9, 2014, at 1:18 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> For the banks, there's a much simpler solution anyway. Banks should be
> S/MIME-signing all their customer-facing outbound mail, and a customer
> should know with 100% certainty that if they get a mail which isn't
> S/MIME signed with the
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Larry Finch
wrote:
> I think that is the reason. Users for the most part are trusting. If an
> email says it comes from their bank they believe it. Most banks have gone
> to great lengths to make it easy to verify that a message really comes from
> the bank, such
On Jun 9, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy via dmarc-discuss
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Larry Finch wrote:
>> User education (if that is possible) is the best defense.
>
> I seem to recall a presentation some years ago that discovered over 18% of
> users go through thei
On Sunday, June 08, 2014 7:22 AM [GMT+1=CET], David Woodhouse via dmarc-discuss
wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-06-07 at 16:42 -0400, Larry Finch via dmarc-discuss
> wrote:
> >
> > DMARC really sounded good when it was first defined and spec’d. And
> > it DOES prevent spoofing a Yahoo or AOL address, but
On Monday, June 09, 2014 10:35 PM [GMT+1=CET], David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 21:39 +0200, J. Gomez via dmarc-discuss wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 08, 2014 7:22 AM [GMT+1=CET], David Woodhouse via
> > dmarc-discuss wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 2014-06-07 at 16:42 -0400, Larry Finch via
On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 13:49 -0400, Larry Finch wrote:
>On Jun 9, 2014, at 1:18 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > My understanding is that (a) it's too hard for users to understand
> > how to set it up and how to respond when problems occur,
What is there to set up?
If your MUA shows you that t
On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 21:39 +0200, J. Gomez via dmarc-discuss wrote:
> On Sunday, June 08, 2014 7:22 AM [GMT+1=CET], David Woodhouse via
> dmarc-discuss wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2014-06-07 at 16:42 -0400, Larry Finch via dmarc-discuss
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > DMARC really sounded good when it was fir
10 matches
Mail list logo
