On Wed 01/Jun/2022 20:01:58 +0200 John Levine wrote:
It appears that Barry Leiba <[email protected]> said:
(Not about Phill's message in particular: his is just the most recent
one to reply to.)
This was a fine topic to ask about, and the early discussion answered
the initial questions -- and pointed out, correctly, that this isn't a
DMARC issue. The continuing discussion is definitely out of scope for
the working group. ...
In the unlikely event there is any blood left in this turnip, the spfbis
list is still active and seems like the logical place to argue about
changes to SPF.
The only droplet is the consideration that if Verisign hasn't got it, there
must be a whole bunch of people who think that sending email is in the 90s.
That implies we must say something more loudly and more clearly.
Note replies directed there.
Sorry, but this is not an SPF issue. David's message arrived at IETF with a
helo name of wforward1-smtp.messagingengine.com, which has a correct SPF
record, and a DKIM signature by d=messagingengine.com. Perfectly
authenticated, then, except for alignment.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
