IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Review of draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-00 (was:Fwd: Eliot's review of the DMARC spec)

SM <sm@resistor.net> Sun, 07 July 2013 06:34 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.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 9755A21F91B7 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 23:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 FTIbkYl0XvTd for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 23:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DA6A21F8700 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 23:34:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r676YO5x001335; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 23:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1373178869; bh=XSu6xT2AB8s/BIeY1ZYf/mCHDIbtzpmyTe4EqV1xF9I=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=RiMbp4etmXG+GWLaMjtRXTWWgvkm39KvN4xmFAIuCRctM2Kkd35LGSpYawDF7j/Gu p9Mq8gH510Pa8Pm0S/jM3/I1clqQDGz1AUrliTPX1WeugfotxDU6xEMAJLIB/7/k2h uHXh2vI+IPD2tfO1ED7XdC7z35YCild4fBdbbQCA=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1373178869; i=@resistor.net; bh=XSu6xT2AB8s/BIeY1ZYf/mCHDIbtzpmyTe4EqV1xF9I=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=MHXKWyr1CZ0B/HdbHgooIbfbKixZBQqCJmGIegCwAe/PyMxS59DRZFrorlVbqYRIr 6cO2f4ZBaZFYA99Zy3eI6tUVXFBlOQLRtBiIm4jiHiKMNkTAxA/qxfubesReu2HUeW hZyWoo9/XRS7YBK6uyS9cscb4/EG0kXatlsZ5hkc=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130706230555.06a4e890@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 23:16:25 -0700
To: Franck Martin <fmartin@linkedin.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <77426B543150464AA3F30DF1A91365DE53A7FE84@ESV4-MBX02.linked in.biz>
References: <519B47DC.20008@cisco.com> <CAL0qLwYZOp1FNVSAmzXYkZG_O3Yv+EQrAKKLpRiE5svcOMamTA@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130523002139.0da7ac58@resistor.net> <CAL0qLwYT6BS=HGLX1-u80aqaJWefipT5tcg5Ut_549y4rOej9g@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130705091238.0be05400@resistor.net> <77426B543150464AA3F30DF1A91365DE53A77D0C@ESV4-MBX02.linkedin.biz> <6.2.5.6.2.20130706105143.0d56b5f8@resistor.net> <77426B543150464AA3F30DF1A91365DE53A7FE84@ESV4-MBX02.linkedin.biz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Review of draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-00 (was:Fwd: Eliot's review of the DMARC spec)
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: Sun, 07 Jul 2013 06:34:38 -0000

Hi Franck,
At 12:15 06-07-2013, Franck Martin wrote:
>Sure, but if you don't provide guidance in this document for 
>implementors, where will you give it?

If the purpose of the document is to provide guidance for 
implementers about why a message is considered as spam I would put 
that guidance in the document.

Regards,
-sm

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email