Re: [dmarc-ietf] Add MLS/MLM subscription/submissions controls to DMARCbis
Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> Mon, 01 May 2023 14:18 UTC
Return-Path: <hsantos@isdg.net>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBB72C13AE28 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 May 2023 07:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isdg.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YaPAEen-D7Lh for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 May 2023 07:18:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.winserver.com (mail.winserver.com [3.137.120.140]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AAF5C15155E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 May 2023 07:18:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=6869; t=1682950684; atps=ietf.org; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject: List-ID; bh=XKqbnGjFLaADXLIbCI/yNvTo/gnjGU2wmreNT+b2UT4=; b=QD03 di1dQBKA7mf5htVZ9M/bxsilUwTZPi2REydpYG8CICwomddKhJx5pP/eG2DBRgLQ I2wgqqaYqov2dPdbWW5CcVZxnxzmxyXYaJG77NtojCRcp+wRMCsaPldVWTp1q3Mt kyd1/C2lKvsGDZcdsIms+E9YEp1T1LkMe3+AZYY=
Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.13) for dmarc@ietf.org; Mon, 01 May 2023 10:18:04 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.68] ([75.26.216.248]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.13) with ESMTP id 3343454629.1.6784; Mon, 01 May 2023 10:18:03 -0400
Message-ID: <644FCA1A.3030706@isdg.net>
Date: Mon, 01 May 2023 10:18:02 -0400
From: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Reply-To: hsantos@isdg.net
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <CALaySJ+NBg9vzqa0_t-sBf7EKXQ3A=DTyy-Vc7M-ZK9-vfJxmw@mail.gmail.com> <29216533.CRhL9lMF2B@localhost> <3141092.K83ThNGNZP@zini-1880> <CAH48ZfzS+MCC4-Dk3mZhF_bwc9hzWowApgPG3am14bjB9ZDz3Q@mail.gmail.com> <630A8A65-E04D-4C48-AE80-516F610EB93A@isdg.net> <CAH48ZfzmQJBb3xNSvVn84wpwf5SK2F0RSNQnSNObtxKfdHaY1w@mail.gmail.com> <B4E79EF6-E5F5-4969-824A-329576ECF20C@isdg.net> <CAH48ZfxaW5qO01HO-ESj4Sgy9gHM2rx8h_zA2-vHdS0s=yCcBg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFcYR_VBXmqT++8bS94Q1v9MPoHLXYn-0yCWy5U4FMj4gY6=XQ@mail.gmail.com> <8d9eda3e-6d72-ccbc-41ee-148a75698682@tana.it> <644FBDF6.3000207@isdg.net> <MN2PR11MB435152293B779BD3B6DAA904F76E9@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB435152293B779BD3B6DAA904F76E9@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/B2AIX-3T-DBqcC33ZT3j8lSbjTY>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Add MLS/MLM subscription/submissions controls to DMARCbis
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 May 2023 14:18:17 -0000
Alex, I agree with a suggestion to have a separate document, a great starting point is to update the ATPS RFC document. However, DMARCbis MUST open up the door for it and address the potential new security issues with From Rewrite. 1) Address the MUST NOT p=reject with a new small section, a few paragraphs citing the basic non-compliance issues with legacy MLS/MLM verifiers of not following DMARC policy and instead creating a new potential security threat which may required a security threat section or add it to the current "Display Attack" security section. I don't believe we can get by this by saying it will "never happen." 2) Update section 4.4.3 Extended Tag Extensions to update the door up to 3rd party authorization, ATPS and possibly others. Thanks -- HLS On 5/1/2023 9:49 AM, Brotman, Alex wrote: > This sounds like a separate document to me. (yes, I see Ale's draft below) And IMO, I don't think we should hold up DMARCbis for that work. > > -- > Alex Brotman > Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy > Comcast > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dmarc <dmarc-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Hector Santos >> Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 9:26 AM >> To: dmarc@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Add MLS/MLM subscription/submissions controls to >> DMARCbis >> >> On 5/1/2023 6:51 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >>> Been there, done that. For the message I'm replying to, I have: >>> >>> Authentication-Results: wmail.tana.it; >>> spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ietf.org; >>> dkim=pass reason="Original-From: transformed" header.d=google.com; >>> dkim=pass (whitelisted) header.d=ietf.org >>> header.b=jAsjjtsp (ietf1); >>> dkim=fail (signature verification failed, whitelisted) >>> header.d=ietf.org >>> header.b=QuwLQGvz (ietf1) >>> >>> However, not all signatures can be verified. Mailman tries and >>> preserve most header fields, but not all. For example, they rewrite >>> MIME-Version: from scratch and don't save the old one. So if a poster >>> signs that field and writes it differently (e.g. with a >>> comment) MLM transformation cannot be undone. >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draf >>> t-vesely-dmarc-mlm-transform__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!DfPhD9QIFk5QZaU- >> JPkz748sZC >> QtLXqL1FIxGonW_xDwc9pXdioEnY546GZUnzjzSNW1BdDF27VjLabqZaB5XtMgrS >> WZ9HPP >>> m2s$ >>> >> And this was my result for your message, separating lines for easier >> reading: >> >> Authentication-Results: dkim.winserver.com; >> dkim=pass header.d=ietf.org header.s=ietf1 header.i=ietf.org; >> adsp=none author.d=tana.it signer.d=ietf.org; >> dmarc=fail policy=none author.d=tana.it signer.d=ietf.org (unauthorized >> signer); >> >> dkim=pass header.d=ietf.org header.s=ietf1 header.i=ietf.org; >> adsp=none author.d=tana.it signer.d=ietf.org; >> dmarc=fail policy=none author.d=tana.it signer.d=ietf.org (unauthorized >> signer); >> >> dkim=fail (DKIM_BAD_SYNTAX) header.d=none header.s=none header.i=none; >> adsp=dkim-fail author.d=tana.it signer.d=; >> dmarc=dkim-fail policy=none author.d=tana.it signer.d= (unauthorized signer); >> >> dkim=fail (DKIM_BODY_HASH_MISMATCH) header.d=tana.it header.s=delta >> header.i=tana.it; >> adsp=dkim-fail author.d=tana.it signer.d=tana.it; >> dmarc=dkim-fail policy=none author.d=tana.it signer.d=tana.it >> (originating signer); >> >> Four signatures were added to your submission and the only one that counts is >> the top one, the last one added. >> >> It failed DMARC because tana.it did not authorized ietf.org. You can >> easily resolve this by adding atps=y to your DMARC record: >> >> v=DMARC1; p=none; atps=y; rua=mailto:dmarcaggr@tana.it; >> ruf=mailto:dmarcfail@tana.it; >> >> and add an ATPS sub-domain record authorizing ietf.org in your dana.it >> zone: >> >> pq6xadozsi47rluiq5yohg2hy3mvjyoo._atps TXT ("v=atps01; d=ietf.org;") >> >> Do that and all ATPS compliant verifiers should show a DMARC=pass: >> >> Authentication-Results: dkim.winserver.com; >> dkim=pass header.d=ietf.org header.s=ietf1 header.i=ietf.org; >> adsp=none author.d=tana.it signer.d=ietf.org; >> dmarc=pass policy=none author.d=tana.it signer.d=ietf.org (ATPS signer); >> >> >> For a short list of signers, I updated my DMARC evaluator to also support ASL >> "Authorized Signer List" to avoid the extra ATPS record. >> So doing this will work across my evaluator for smaller scale mail senders >> >> v=DMARC1; p=none; atps=y; asl=ietf.org; rua=mailto:dmarcaggr@tana.it; >> ruf=mailto:dmarcfail@tana.it; >> >> >> This will skip atps=y because asl=ietf.org was satisfied. It was show >> how it was authorized: >> >> dmarc=pass policy=none author.d=tana.it signer.d=ietf.org (ASL signer); >> >> >> Any ATPS or ASL idea will give us the author-defined trust of ietf.org >> as a 3rd party signer. >> >> That said, keeping with the suggestion DMARCBis should add MLS/MLM >> semantics, I believe when the Receiver is receiving mail for a >> MLS/MLM, it should have the following updated modern consideration >> for a MLS/MLM: >> >> 1) It should honor policy first, by check for restrictive domains >> >> 2) It should honor the domain restrictive policy to avoid creating new >> security problems and avoid delivery problems. This means to >> implement subscription and submission controls. DMARCbis should pass >> the buck back to the restrictive domain who must deal with user's >> needs or not. >> >> 3) It should check if the submission's author domain authorizes the >> MLM signing domain by finding a ATPS record, if so.... >> >> 3.1) it can continue as the 3rd party signer and also keep the From as >> is, unchanged, or >> >> 3.2) it can also consider to rewrite. If rewrite is performed, the >> signing domain should have a security that does not allow any Display >> Attack Replays with the now altered 5322.From identity. >> >> >> -- >> Hector Santos, >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://santronics.com__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!DfPhD9 >> QIFk5QZaU- >> JPkz748sZCQtLXqL1FIxGonW_xDwc9pXdioEnY546GZUnzjzSNW1BdDF27VjLabqZa >> B5XtMgrSWZ3guWaPw$ >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://winserver.com__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!DfPhD9Q >> IFk5QZaU- >> JPkz748sZCQtLXqL1FIxGonW_xDwc9pXdioEnY546GZUnzjzSNW1BdDF27VjLabqZa >> B5XtMgrSWZOlLgxbE$ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmarc mailing list >> dmarc@ietf.org >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc__;! >> !CQl3mcHX2A!DfPhD9QIFk5QZaU- >> JPkz748sZCQtLXqL1FIxGonW_xDwc9pXdioEnY546GZUnzjzSNW1BdDF27VjLabqZa >> B5XtMgrSWZiFT7qwo$ > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > > -- Hector Santos, https://santronics.com https://winserver.com
- [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and indir… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Todd Herr
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Mark Alley
- [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis and M3AAWG Email Auth BCP (… Todd Herr
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Todd Herr
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Brotman, Alex
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Todd Herr
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Todd Herr
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Brotman, Alex
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Pete Resnick
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Todd Herr
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Brotman, Alex
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Todd Herr
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Mark Alley
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Pete Resnick
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] THIS IS ABUSE (no it's not) Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Understanding Ale's Abuse resear… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] THIS IS ABUSE (it might be) Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] THIS IS ABUSE (it might be) Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Mark Alley
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] THIS IS ABUSE (it might be) Eric D. Williams
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] THIS IS ABUSE (it might be) Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] THIS IS ABUSE (it might be) Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] THIS IS ABUSE (it might be) Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] THIS IS ABUSE (it might be) John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] THIS IS A DISTRACTION (it might … John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] THIS IS A DISTRACTION (it might … Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] THIS IS A DISTRACTION (it might … Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Mark Alley
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Neil Anuskiewicz
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Matthäus Wander
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Jesse Thompson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Neil Anuskiewicz
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Matthäus Wander
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] THIS IS ABUSE (it might be) Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] THIS IS ABUSE (it might be) John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Mark Alley
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Laura Atkins
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Laura Atkins
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] THIS IS ABUSE (it might be) Eric D. Williams
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] THIS IS ABUSE (it might be) John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Laura Atkins
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Emanuel Schorsch
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Mark Alley
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Laura Atkins
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Wei Chuang
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Mark Alley
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Scott Kitterman
- [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: Prop… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Jesse Thompson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Jesse Thompson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Jesse Thompson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Jesse Thompson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Brotman, Alex
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Jesse Thompson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Jesse Thompson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Jesse Thompson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Jesse Thompson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Jesse Thompson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: … Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and i… Hector Santos
- [dmarc-ietf] Summary: Search for some consensus, … Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Summary: Search for some consens… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Summary: Search for some consens… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Summary: Search for some consens… Douglas Foster
- [dmarc-ietf] Add MLS/MLM subscription/submissions… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Add MLS/MLM subscription/submiss… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Add MLS/MLM subscription/submiss… Emanuel Schorsch
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Add MLS/MLM subscription/submiss… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Add MLS/MLM subscription/submiss… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Add MLS/MLM subscription/submiss… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Add MLS/MLM subscription/submiss… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Add MLS/MLM subscription/submiss… Brotman, Alex
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Add MLS/MLM subscription/submiss… Hector Santos
- [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: Summary: Search for some consen… Scott Kitterman