On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 10:21 AM Douglas Foster < dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Murray, I was hoping your proposal to advance ARC was serious. > If people think (and have evidence that) ARC is ready, then why would I not be serious? The WG needs to resolve that "if" though. > To Ale's concerns, I think a registration process would help mailing > lists, but there are many options, and we do not need to define one single > solution. Most of the mailbox providers already have a registration > process for bulk senders, with a feedback loop for problem situations. I > see plenty of opportunity for them to build on that. > This also needs to be described if we think that's a part of the solution. My overall point is that this thread makes it seem like we're not putting forward a complete solution. It feels a lot more like a proposed standard that for its clear success depends on a bunch of other things that range from experimental to abstract to undefined. And if that's a correct summary, I'm asking if that's what we really want to do. It seems a little haphazard, like we're scrambling to tie together the loose ends of a movie plot. We need to do a good job of bringing our audience to as solid a conclusion as possible, or the critics' reviews might not come out well. -MSK, participant
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
