-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Tue, 2018-07-24 at 00:30 +0200, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> And still I'm honestly looking for stats about how many domains are
> really currently sending DMARC reports to senders (I get reports for
> much less than 1% of my recipients: is it what yo
> And still I'm honestly looking for stats about how many domains are
> really currently sending DMARC reports to senders (I get reports for
> much less than 1% of my recipients: is it what you all get or is there
> something wrong in my setup/target?).
I’ve done some analysis for clients in the
On Tue, 24 Jul 2018, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
We wrote that a long time before anyone had imagined the mess that is DMARC.
Well, if it is not valid anymore then we need an update... "You" made
3 revisions between 2007 and 2011 and then stopped updating it when it
really started being used? ;-)
Th
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 23:50, John Levine wrote:
> In article
> you
> write:
> >On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 20:16, Steve Atkins wrote:
> >> > On Jul 21, 2018, at 1:28 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> > Otherwise we keep weakening DMARC to a point where it is not useful
> >> > anymore.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:04 PM, Laura Atkins
wrote:
>
> On Jul 23, 2018, at 1:30 PM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 20:16, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
> On Jul 21, 2018, at 1:28 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> [...]
> Otherwise we keep weakening DMARC to a point where it is not usef
> On Jul 23, 2018, at 1:30 PM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 20:16, Steve Atkins wrote:
>>> On Jul 21, 2018, at 1:28 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Otherwise we keep weakening DMARC to a point where it is not useful anymore.
>>
>> For many senders it's not useful
In article
you write:
>On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 20:16, Steve Atkins wrote:
>> > On Jul 21, 2018, at 1:28 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > Otherwise we keep weakening DMARC to a point where it is not useful
>> > anymore.
>>
>> For many senders it's not useful; it's actively harmful. The
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 20:16, Steve Atkins wrote:
> > On Jul 21, 2018, at 1:28 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> > [...]
> > Otherwise we keep weakening DMARC to a point where it is not useful anymore.
>
> For many senders it's not useful; it's actively harmful. They're deploying it
> because they've
> On Jul 21, 2018, at 1:28 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 at 04:11, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> The concern for replay attack should be adequately mitigated by gluing
>> the d= identifier to the major substance of the message. The rest,
>> really, is handling-related, rather tha
Nope, no Bimi header that I can see (well non explicitly using the name "bimi"
at least), that's why I was wondering if they were testing something new, and
which "steps" sender have to pay attention to.
Mathieu.
-Message d'origine-
De : mailop [mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org] De la
* Mathieu Bourdin :
> Since this morning , we've seen several cases of big brands (for the moment
> only US and some Chinese brands like Wish/alibaba) getting their logo
> displayed on the beta version of outlook.com (and in the vintage version when
> a mail is opened). We were wondering if this
Hi,
Since this morning , we've seen several cases of big brands (for the moment
only US and some Chinese brands like Wish/alibaba) getting their logo displayed
on the beta version of outlook.com (and in the vintage version when a mail is
opened). We were wondering if this would be the first ste
12 matches
Mail list logo