Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows
"Brotman, Alex" <Alex_Brotman@comcast.com> Wed, 29 March 2023 15:33 UTC
Return-Path: <Alex_Brotman@comcast.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 8E4F4C151522 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 08:33:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.992
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.992 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 (2048-bit key) header.d=comcast.com header.b="dolYfLs3"; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=comcastcorp.onmicrosoft.com header.b="W1lCCfkx"
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 uUxxHwGSs9V1 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 08:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00143702.pphosted.com (mx0a-00143702.pphosted.com [148.163.145.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DE06C14EB19 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 08:32:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0184893.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00143702.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 32TFEYR5026973 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 11:32:16 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=20190412; bh=BXEt/ZA2SP0Y36aioKKzz1+yjE8rCAHZ/0IOMfIqi0o=; b=dolYfLs3/YGqMgRQVWn3fmpdy/KnrOZ/oOntzI10Ivz1j5eD2nGfE40qQR1IaXS3+03x VbSfLBtc5imQ1hIhDZqraakuNpJiXXD4/8py/qecv33nTwhNMdXSa1ODLTSGN1WWB4AV i0mZR0hfrI+WwOLRVqQQPl3TaXilQEFh7NbRcB6zodV4KMHegE4BXdukUt2L+CXl4bRF gYgeMHV+AxKEYuJcJJSIA4AgGP0hnkljsL/4FCycvtWD+jxqEmUH4z2JcGaSiqaCFyOE 5T3c/vF9bUIrYdfAK/U+LIxVLxx7lcdzicr0LJyGUwXlaWOZ8hpRpewDuP3Ty89qkDnT VQ==
Received: from nam11-co1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam11lp2175.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.56.175]) by mx0a-00143702.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3pm49wge2f-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 11:32:14 -0400
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=JkGleaxucb5qKYpYspssjovNtGMfPIa88iduB5u9Aodlx4SvubZC2G0SGZmH40/juMW1O4k6CdjPRfeg9LO2gSwizGpsT9r0GYOG+DYMp94Fl14+Tfq5AAHMlH+UB+cG+nVPw1QdobbOuUK5b91qMOc95fsglhMGs8FLgP8IttclF0A/mDTyXlKNWBBpBPNNsFDeu8avLFYWIwBJBQjfZUmeuaEBM4QzJm4jARJb8Bk2FJozNXpNpPWDdBOS6Wga4w+P3+4PB8bRyJFlmfuKxwxXiM9dJI7XuuTVVnuS1l3oTfSuOaq0CKvXoCzfiRDt+RHHgVROAfVtlrkaPnxksA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=BXEt/ZA2SP0Y36aioKKzz1+yjE8rCAHZ/0IOMfIqi0o=; b=kfdyhEo8P4iwGeqxImacYE8Q/TqSlVxbHynPSSE7x7k0KnBjOU8v32CWdvAHV1M/mi02WQiMjN+ewBNxFvk+LiXjDpJwvD64YMz8GMge/flDs7pNnOxDEz4ecApSUt+6cfp338l/lAQX2ityVn2hgugQrRw+juR615L4VGHGVpaGpDiDfg57yX/ozM5xRlzL7DQZte6iGGI8YRXU23dKOT1xRlU8NHMZ3cRzX2xtMAo93mnA6fVZQBX1M86MTRdP9KXW66emA51J6h79hVQ80gGmZL0CafwikCtl/4XMlpI92DHfEsxBkA/5OaQfwgrOOXs35nyun2kCPbxLuwvdpQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=comcast.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=comcast.com; dkim=pass header.d=comcast.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcastcorp.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-comcastcorp-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=BXEt/ZA2SP0Y36aioKKzz1+yjE8rCAHZ/0IOMfIqi0o=; b=W1lCCfkxZSVccljIg2zmfCUTtj6fO4YqZswoiIIVFFU+sWr+E0o1sDLjtXX8IQBqEaQcB72IM0ySJcKoODsydf4HmGju3SZJkuEreM1p2eElqzsWpAA1CAukptSz6Df1FDv9UezhxI3W1Qq/Q08SdVKGu6l7Lpu1vwinEQVIC+E=
Received: from MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:193::31) by DS0PR11MB8000.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:8:128::12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.6222.30; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 15:32:10 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::5acd:7431:27b0:8d40]) by MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::5acd:7431:27b0:8d40%7]) with mapi id 15.20.6222.035; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 15:32:10 +0000
From: "Brotman, Alex" <Alex_Brotman@comcast.com>
To: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows
Thread-Index: AQHZYU110RHIJKYq002iiG8E89Hj5a8QdkQAgAAaNQCAAAzhAIAABaMAgABPrwCAANC7gIAAC7yAgAATBwA=
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 15:32:10 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR11MB43519A6CD95E5C80AA1EC2CFF7899@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CALaySJ+NBg9vzqa0_t-sBf7EKXQ3A=DTyy-Vc7M-ZK9-vfJxmw@mail.gmail.com> <6319292.vCqnBZbX7o@localhost> <CAHej_8nd1xyAgwASLJbuJHyXEAfHbjqxNH1XtJxKFyfyOneyug@mail.gmail.com> <13145172.pEV04Z3DvM@localhost> <CAHej_8msLJQ0vbZ2jzitjxrQ1wdim5bHJkiD-QrU5F0EJvQp0g@mail.gmail.com> <FCFEB95E-63F9-46C3-A5F4-FA6B02FA8EB5@episteme.net> <CAHej_8=GbmzyXaeEkyLkv6uKc0-owuMC6UspPNq9irT7nF8b7w@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJLmRyyBLE7ZKy88XUS_hXr9M2uwc8jOCYBrBPeC+pCdCg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJLmRyyBLE7ZKy88XUS_hXr9M2uwc8jOCYBrBPeC+pCdCg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_15652fe2-2b59-4d95-925c-ee86d789ff67_ActionId=876166d1-7ed4-4e76-9b9b-597ac6f0b0c9; MSIP_Label_15652fe2-2b59-4d95-925c-ee86d789ff67_ContentBits=0; MSIP_Label_15652fe2-2b59-4d95-925c-ee86d789ff67_Enabled=true; MSIP_Label_15652fe2-2b59-4d95-925c-ee86d789ff67_Method=Standard; MSIP_Label_15652fe2-2b59-4d95-925c-ee86d789ff67_Name=Confidential (C); MSIP_Label_15652fe2-2b59-4d95-925c-ee86d789ff67_SetDate=2023-03-29T15:23:16Z; MSIP_Label_15652fe2-2b59-4d95-925c-ee86d789ff67_SiteId=906aefe9-76a7-4f65-b82d-5ec20775d5aa;
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB4351:EE_|DS0PR11MB8000:EE_
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: d40a8828-23b8-4734-8de5-08db306ac311
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-ms-exchange-antispam-relay: 0
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(13230028)(4636009)(136003)(366004)(396003)(346002)(376002)(39860400002)(451199021)(53546011)(9686003)(41300700001)(64756008)(6506007)(55016003)(186003)(7696005)(966005)(71200400001)(83380400001)(478600001)(316002)(66446008)(66476007)(38100700002)(76116006)(166002)(66556008)(6916009)(2906002)(8676002)(66946007)(33656002)(52536014)(86362001)(82960400001)(38070700005)(40140700001)(5660300002)(122000001)(8936002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: 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
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MN2PR11MB43519A6CD95E5C80AA1EC2CFF7899MN2PR11MB4351namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: comcast.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: d40a8828-23b8-4734-8de5-08db306ac311
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 29 Mar 2023 15:32:10.0247 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 906aefe9-76a7-4f65-b82d-5ec20775d5aa
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: h48X74FqDMwAchGTTm0t5XL6VZ+7rSZrxqIrukZR+SgI8oT9wr+juD4imXBVdE0qJUSGi4yofO9znxdeY/0DT6k+BKKMadLZ4psro2h9kGY=
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DS0PR11MB8000
X-Proofpoint-GUID: GZg2S_NOtJt15S2ePq2gTzP8uZOMG6sz
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: GZg2S_NOtJt15S2ePq2gTzP8uZOMG6sz
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.254,Aquarius:18.0.942,Hydra:6.0.573,FMLib:17.11.170.22 definitions=2023-03-29_09,2023-03-28_02,2023-02-09_01
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/FBS2-qPTgCxewbrlbQWdH9Qb2Tg>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows
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: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 15:33:44 -0000
I’m just not sure how we determine what is high-value. comcast.com: p=reject comcast.net: p=none xfinity.com: p=quarantine The top one is corporate, middle is consumer, bottom is consumer (but not actually used) & customer comms (sub-domains). They’re all used in various ways for internal messaging. Should I tell our corporate admins that they need to no longer publish p=reject? They’re violating the RFC by doing so? There are very few consumer-oriented messages that originate from comcast.com. Are we doing it right? It makes things a little harder when one of our employees wants to use a mailing list. But that still feels like the right thing to do. If it’s not obvious, I’m having a hard time with “MUST NOT”, and dictating to domain owners what is in their best interests, regardless of our perceived value of their domain. -- Alex Brotman Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast From: dmarc <dmarc-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Barry Leiba Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 10:15 AM To: Todd Herr <todd.herr=40valimail.com@dmarc.ietf.org> Cc: dmarc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows I'm very much against text such as this, as I think it encourages deployments that are contrary to interoperability and to the intent of p=reject. I contend that p=reject (as with the similar construct in the older ADSP) was intended for high-value domains and transactional mail, and that it was never intended for use in domains where general users send general email. I stand by the MUST NOT that I proposed. Barry On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 10:33 PM Todd Herr <todd.herr=40valimail.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40valimail.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 9:06 PM Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net<mailto:resnick@episteme.net>> wrote: If you agree that interoperability is increased, then I'd suggest that you actually do agree that the proposed text is appropriate. I don't know that I agree that interoperability is increased... I'm having trouble squaring proposed language that says "Domain owners MUST NOT publish p=reject because it breaks interoperability" with the following language from section 5.8: Mail Receivers **MAY** choose to accept email that fails the DMARC mechanism check even if the published Domain Owner Assessment Policy is "reject". In particular, because of the considerations discussed in [@!RFC7960], it is important that Mail Receivers **SHOULD NOT** reject messages solely because of a published policy of "reject", but that they apply other knowledge and analysis to avoid situations such as rejection of legitimate messages sent in ways that DMARC cannot describe, harm to the operation of mailing lists, and similar. It seems inconsistent to state with certainty that authorized mail will be rejected due to authentication breakage when there is no requirement that a reject policy be honored (and we have plenty of evidence that Mail Receivers are following the 'SHOULD NOT reject messages' guidance). Language that would be more consistent in guidance to the domain owners might look something like this: After careful analysis of the aggregate report data as described in section 5.5.5 (Collect and Analyze Reports), Domain Owners **MAY** choose to change their policy from 'none' to 'quarantine' or 'reject'. If, in the Domain Owner's judgement, unauthorized and deceptive use of its domain name in the RFC5322.From field puts at risk the trust it has built with its recipients, then it is **RECOMMENDED** that the Domain Owner make use of the p and/or sp tags to set policy to 'quarantine' or 'reject' for those streams most at risk of loss of trust. If going that route, probably want to consider expanding on 5.5.5, too; I need to think about it some more. -- Todd Herr | Technical Director, Standards and Ecosystem e: todd.herr@valimail.com<mailto:todd.herr@valimail.com> m: 703.220.4153 This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org<mailto:dmarc@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!BnSVJ7Ot7xEorNxvwnQPPLKjCUoG0MiUMFnPczO18L4RV-xRev7lnYcl6buwUHNn4JbzvGlzqAMl2J5l4bHsMbKOXw$>
- [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