Re: [dmarc-ietf] Add MLS/MLM subscription/submissions controls to DMARCbis
Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com> Mon, 01 May 2023 01:54 UTC
Return-Path: <dougfoster.emailstandards@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 7936AC15198F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Apr 2023 18:54:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.094 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 7MJJB4DXsVFX for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Apr 2023 18:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x130.google.com (mail-lf1-x130.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::130]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 18A08C15199C for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Apr 2023 18:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x130.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-4f004cc54f4so2813837e87.3 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Apr 2023 18:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1682906073; x=1685498073; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=bCYoxxbqerLgQeb2o98j5Oa6eei55hl84Nx7YFEQ0nU=; b=nu5X1OjzupaApHnfuBURaUxuPoZFIcINwH9Vqvlde1hF3s6M56AMG+MtJ+SN0j/I2t CwH15VEh1YvSde9JMe1Hd7dYcOuhiZneJik/79lIXqh6U5ZCWJ48eKkeYza9I7Rr5Iuu nYjdsHOv410USXe8OnEapoXsEo0GcL2fqDTV9Vjy4s5ZHuWVpyU6vCdm+JIChvFdekc9 7lD3gQcre0snFpmzOUXU/S19i7tVgDZwgi4nqvgt9EICqxtezVP2TB+8g9iSTfH3mT63 8DziZ5XVDwWA7JOay+idwL2lp4ryFPmTG2wumEQQw7WppIVXhPGOIWDHx8j/xM1vrGKX Ic8Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1682906073; x=1685498073; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=bCYoxxbqerLgQeb2o98j5Oa6eei55hl84Nx7YFEQ0nU=; b=leMubcP4KB+v67+i+bTUa2EqcoT6xH6S09KADEFIwYN6tDB5SxypramAXjhwygPUFL 6L6/ZYGf1lDCCDkIDCqbwHl4eLLu9MxmH5F/sg5N9Y2SIjRQOJPJIIbB7UVP/Lpw7S1q HgRU9PBSHEkdPEAymEZVr0+6qyaJawOhFkdVbJfzBMvbPhA3yIp7OW8rD6trcy/OqbRS Ck5Tn6a9BDmEC/3HzPioHxCzHQVcLW9ob0m/f/e7mXf1G/9SdS744FyNstvjbSWccvmm DfKh+laBxQNctmMWR23ZcZqdHJTHnZl0nFflmRFeb7M//CSot0sfrW8OoYU2JrHLq12t +3zg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDzSn1LSJ40Yuw9Sv2O7VQo14EAeQ/E0xsTrMN6gkOxEO03mkDLT OC4cVa6k0vRns1RIFPj/TtOVjjCeMFGMIpg8a5cbUTMg
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ4rBxDTgxl7gmSPSJf2dYSBTrO23d1H2cxu6TrezRsv4SSonq7MB2C3KjPoaovkhqWW4GZMB42/FiEBqxuJ8/s=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:740a:0:b0:4ef:ffff:cc8a with SMTP id v10-20020a19740a000000b004efffffcc8amr3494090lfe.47.1682906072427; Sun, 30 Apr 2023 18:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <B4E79EF6-E5F5-4969-824A-329576ECF20C@isdg.net>
From: Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2023 21:54:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CAH48ZfxaW5qO01HO-ESj4Sgy9gHM2rx8h_zA2-vHdS0s=yCcBg@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a3307a05fa981ae8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/tuSK8l-EBtbTpc-VlEQYfktiR8s>
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 01:54:39 -0000
Everything depends on an evaluator who trusts the alternate authentication protocol. We have at least three trust techniques: - local policy at evaluator - ARC set trusted by evaluator - ATPS trusted by evaluator. Until the list knows that the evaluator will accept the credentials, he has to assume that rewrite is necessary to avoid message blocks, unsubscribes, and possibly blacklisting No such feedback exists at present, so even though ARC has some acceptance, it is a hollow victory. DF On Sun, Apr 30, 2023, 8:05 PM Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> wrote: > > > On Apr 29, 2023, at 4:42 PM, Douglas Foster < > dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com> wrote: > > ... > > But I need to clarify whether I understand your point. What I am hearing > is: > > - For the short term, mailing lists should refuse postings from > DMARC-enforcing domains. That position can be relaxed only if all > participating domains have agreed to ignore DMARC Fail for messages from > the list (Ale floated some ideas about that approach.) > - For the longer term, we need a non-DKIM method for delegating rights > to a third party. > > > Ideally, the goal is to eliminate “From Rewrite” to return to the “good > ol’ days.” So the first time is to recognize having subscription and > submissions controls is a natural consideration for the DKIM Policy > "Protocol Complete” model. If the MLS supports the protocol, it would > consider this method more so than a destruction method that tear down > security. This will also pass the buck back to the domain owner to deal > with its user’s needs or not. > > You talk about "incomplete protocol" as if this is a commonly understood > and accepted term. I interpret it to mean a third-party authentication > method other than DKIM. DKIM does serve for third-party authentication > where it has been embraced and deployed. So the issue is that it has not > been practical for many situations and we do need another option. > > > Protocol complete is a client/server protocol negotiation concept. It > basically means the “State Machine”, the conversation between the client > and server is well-defined. No Loop Holes!!!! Very key concept in protocol > design. > > In terms of DKIM Signing Practices, you can read "Requirements for a > DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signing Practices Protocol https > ://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5016.txt > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5016.txt> for its definition. > > DKIM Signing Complete: a practice where the dtomain holder assert > that all legitimate mail will be sent with a valid first party signature. > > But I believe it is not Protocol Complete and to achieve this with DKIM > Policy Modeling, you have to cover the other signing scenarios which > includes 3rd party signing scenarios. > > ATPS is the best we got and it works. You don’t have to worry, You are > using gmail.com. Relaxed policy. Minimal security. ietf.org Rewrite > destroys my isdg.net domain security even though I have ietf.org > authorized as an ATPS signer. > > It should honor policy and reject my submissions. Idea. Add the option to > the subscription. If you don’t care, let it rewrite to join or use another > unsecured address. > > Not hard. > > — > HLS > > >
- [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