Re: [dmarc-ietf] Another minor contradiction in the draft specification
"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Fri, 19 April 2013 04:36 UTC
Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
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 816BE21F93A6 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E2g+PGm2bOmC for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x22d.google.com (mail-we0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E066A21F93BE for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f173.google.com with SMTP id t57so3005737wey.4 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=s9tDvKWQ0BNOu2ZiDGany6PfTHi8rubKzA4YpirJyNE=; b=SmVjliwmjLN488uNREA4W+mHne7WEMxaQX3k/8AgAe1JuI1VhfxolLNqbZHXS9jzoA vWfDd6EbRLSGK5G4+1Kb74jecVRYbH3034KF0RqR/0carH8qR9yUYB8FaAxc7kA7VZtm QiWbF8Gf7tOtUKf5ak3FV4tof5BvZHyp+JqxK2A+ZF8Ey3coA1EiyLW78f5z4O4LmDbx gut8L0SUb/Abt4QLON/jc1xsjxIzzz5OuV41TA7YD1wJAVgCJS68IQa17zBbcSC4z76K 8xKc8RjMk83bg3jsDTnBkJP3KmCANi21xv0fm/dcvNRFUugIUCUug/eXpa+Vrph06Kdk AlbQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.80.3 with SMTP id n3mr302922wix.20.1366346195081; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.36.176 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:36:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4572267.kM8dzXsS3G@scott-latitude-e6320>
References: <36F7F4EB73874D229804122178606BB6@fgsr.local> <4572267.kM8dzXsS3G@scott-latitude-e6320>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:36:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYNDiMxrcTYq6g-JQ=gEoLvYTcyqKj-v+St-MP6uMz4yA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d041825389920f404daaf438e"
Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Another minor contradiction in the draft specification
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 04:36:40 -0000
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>wrote: > If there's no DMARC policy (none), there's nothing to override. The > change is > a welcome improvement in the spec. Under the old version it wasn't > possible > to publish DMARC records for testing without affecting existing processing. > +1. Moreover, as was pointed out on another thread, we did decide along the way that some of our requirements were not exactly what we needed in the end. Maybe this is another one we should update or simply remove. -MSK
- [dmarc-ietf] Another minor contradiction in the d… J. Gomez
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Another minor contradiction in t… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Another minor contradiction in t… Murray S. Kucherawy