On Sunday, March 31, 2024 3:45:31 PM EDT Seth Blank wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 2:00 PM John Levine wrote:
> > It appears that Mark Alley said:
> > >> People who publish -all know what they do.
> > >
> > >I posit that there is a non-insignificant amount of domain owners that
> > >don't kn
On Monday, April 1, 2024 4:45:20 PM EDT Todd Herr wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> Issue 141 has been opened to collect ideas around the discussion about what
> to say in DMARCbis (if anything) about honoring SPF records that end in
> -all when SPF fails.
>
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dm
Scott, I disagree.
SPF hardfail in a DMARC context is an operational issue that comes up with
some frequency for domain owners.
We should have some minimal amount of clarifying text.
S, individually
Seth Blank | Chief Technology Officer
Email: s...@valimail.com
This email and all data transmi
On Saturday, March 30, 2024 4:05:17 PM EDT Seth Blank wrote:
> Section 4.6: DNS Tree Walk:
>
> The text is correct, but N is wrong. I've shared my notes with this list
> but we never reached consensus:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/GoExCeJYWhxnvH8lwjbr7nAcFh4/
>
> tl;dr: N of 5 wo
The same thing can be said for every step of email processing that comes
before DMARC. If I reject your mail due to your IP being on a block list, you
also don't get DMARC feedback about it.
It was long enough ago that I don't remember if it was RFC 7489 or early in
this working group, but we
You’re not hearing me— this is something that comes up frequently for
organizations working to implement DMARC. Others have confirmed on list.
This is not an academic concern, it’s an operational one as elevated by the
charter.
Your other examples you cited do not come up in practice as issues for
I hear you. Your operational issue is my system working as designed. DMARC
works on top of SPF, it doesn't change it.
Anything like this belongs in an operational guidance document, not in the
protocol description. I have no problem describing the trade offs in an
appropriate document, but
It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
>I hear you. Your operational issue is my system working as designed. DMARC
>works on top of SPF, it doesn't change it.
>
>Anything like this belongs in an operational guidance document, not in the
>protocol description. I have no problem describing th
