> On Jun 22, 2023, at 1:08 PM, Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> wrote:
>
>> I concur that this isn't really a problem for either working group to solve
>> as part of a standard,
>
> Well, the part that the working group needs to solve is whether the
> challenges of getting DKIM right are such that we need to retain SPF
> to fill that gap, or whether the issues with relying on SPF are more
> significant. I think that's an important part of the decision we're
> discussing, and will be a significant part of judging consensus on
> that discussion.
>
> Barry, as chair
>
Barry, this is obviously a new relaxation option. From a mail system
integration standpoint, the options are:
1) A version bump to DMARC2 with new semantics with backward DMARC1
compatibility, or
2) Use a DMARC1 Extended tag option allowed by DMARC1. Alessandro cited an
excellent backward compatible extended tag option:
auth=dkim|spf (default value), auth=dkim+spf, auth=dkim, auth=spf
Of course, this would need to be discussed and I know Levine see this is too
late for DMARCbis, but in my opinion, Why the rush? IETF San Fran next month?
DMARCBis is highly contentious and remains problematic. You know whats
happening. I put my IETF faith in you.
—
HLS
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
