Re: [dmarc-ietf] Dmarcbis way forward

> On Oct 23, 2023, at 11:00 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > > My opinion is that Barry's text is good as is. As far as delimiting a > SHOULD NOT with another SHOULD is legit, this sentence sounds clear to me: > > It is therefore critical that domains that host users who might > post

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC policy discovery and invalid tag exception.

On Oct 25, 2023, at 3:57 AM, Olivier Hureau wrote: On 25/10/2023 08:10, Steven M Jones wrote: It's not so much changing the handling as changing the reporting. * The policy to apply is "none," because the p/sp/np value was

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC policy discovery and invalid tag exception.

On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 9:17 AM Neil Anuskiewicz wrote: > > > On Oct 25, 2023, at 3:57 AM, Olivier Hureau < > olivier.hur...@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr> wrote: > >  > On 25/10/2023 08:10, Steven M Jones wrote: > > It's not so much changing the handling as changing the reporting. > > * The policy to

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC policy discovery and invalid tag exception.

The fact that you aren't seeing failure reports doesn't mean they aren't being generated. My experience has been that they are being made available through 3rd parties where there is a contractual relationship. > > Michael Hammer > ___ > dmarc mailin

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Dmarcbis way forward

What is the definition of rough consensus. That is if you took a vote, 100 people voted yes and 3 voted no, the three win? Id there’s a document that states these rules I’d be happy to dig into it. If there’s a rule we should have a vote. Who is entitled to vote? Like I’m new to this and so it’d

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Dmarcbis way forward

The short answer is it depends. We don't vote. Here's the longer answer: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282 Scott K On November 11, 2023 6:59:20 PM UTC, Neil Anuskiewicz wrote: >What is the definition of rough consensus. That is if you took a vote, 100 >people voted yes and 3 vot

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC policy discovery and invalid tag exception.

On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 1:47 PM Neil Anuskiewicz wrote: > > The fact that you aren't seeing failure reports doesn't mean they aren't > being generated. My experience has been that they are being made available > through 3rd parties where there is a contractual relationship. > > > > Michael Hammer

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC policy discovery and invalid tag exception.

On Nov 11, 2023, at 11:56 AM, Dotzero wrote:On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 1:47 PM Neil Anuskiewicz wrote: The fact that you aren't seeing failure reports doesn't mean they aren't being generated. My experience has been that they are being made available through 3rd parties where

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC policy discovery and invalid tag exception.

On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 3:45 PM Neil Anuskiewicz wrote: > Michael, I’m realizing I started this discussion thinking we were talking > about failure reports and a bit about aggregate reports when I think we > might have pivoted to Feedback Loops and I was so focused on reports, I > failed to regis

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC policy discovery and invalid tag exception.

On Nov 11, 2023, at 1:21 PM, Dotzero wrote:On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 3:45 PM Neil Anuskiewicz wrote:Michael, I’m realizing I started this discussion thinking we were talking about failure reports and a bit about aggregate reports when I think we might have pivoted to Feedback

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Dmarcbis way forward

> On Nov 11, 2023, at 11:06 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > The short answer is it depends. We don't vote. > > Here's the longer answer: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282 > > Scott K > >> On November 11, 2023 6:59:20 PM UTC, Neil Anuskiewicz >> wrote: >> What is the defin

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC policy discovery and invalid tag exception.

On 11/12/23 04:56, Dotzero wrote: Our original intent (I'm one of the folks behind DMARC) was that failure reports would be provided to senders just like aggregate reports. This was before GDPR and privacy concerns did a number on the practice. The companies that provide the service of managi

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Dmarcbis way forward

On 11/12/23 03:59, Neil Anuskiewicz wrote: What is the definition of rough consensus. That is if you took a vote, 100 people voted yes and 3 voted no, the three win? Id there’s a document that states these rules I’d be happy to dig into it. If there’s a rule we should have a vote. Who is entit

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC policy discovery and invalid tag exception.

> On Nov 11, 2023, at 11:56 AM, Dotzero > Our original intent (I'm one of the folks behind DMARC) was that failure > reports would be provided to senders just like aggregate reports. This was > before GDPR and privacy concerns did a number on the practice. The companies > that provide the s

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC policy discovery and invalid tag exception.

> On Nov 11, 2023, at 7:11 PM, Steven M Jones wrote: > >  >> On 11/12/23 04:56, Dotzero wrote: >> >> Our original intent (I'm one of the folks behind DMARC) was that failure >> reports would be provided to senders just like aggregate reports. This was >> before GDPR and privacy concerns did

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Dmarcbis way forward

> On Nov 11, 2023, at 7:24 PM, Steven M Jones wrote: > > On 11/12/23 03:59, Neil Anuskiewicz wrote: >> What is the definition of rough consensus. That is if you took a vote, 100 >> people voted yes and 3 voted no, the three win? Id there’s a document that >> states these rules I’d be happy t

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC policy discovery and invalid tag exception.

On Nov 12, 2023, at 1:02 PM, Neil Anuskiewicz wrote: > > Eventually, I’d reckon, Yahoo will stop sending failure reports, rendering > them worthless as nobody you’ve heard of will send them. Even if that were to happen, the standardized format may continue in use / continue to be useful. And