Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 134 - What To Do With Appendix A.5?

2024-03-14 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 3:20 AM John Levine wrote: > As an author of the ADSP RFC, I enthusiastically support dropping it > into the memory hole. It was a bad idea then and time has not improved > it. I tend to agree. That appendix was meant to answer the question "Why DMARC and not ADSP?"

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 134 - What To Do With Appendix A.5?

2024-03-14 Thread John Levine
It appears that Todd Herr said: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >Colleagues, > >Two people have spoken up on list asking for removal of this section >(thread subject is "A.5 Issues with ADSP in Operation") while one person >has registered opposition to the idea. I don't believe this is anywhere >close to

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 134 - What To Do With Appendix A.5?

2024-03-14 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On Thu 14/Mar/2024 15:53:30 +0100 Todd Herr wrote: Colleagues, Two people have spoken up on list asking for removal of this section (thread subject is "A.5 Issues with ADSP in Operation") while one person has registered opposition to the idea. I don't believe this is anywhere close to critical

[dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 134 - What To Do With Appendix A.5?

2024-03-14 Thread Todd Herr
Colleagues, Two people have spoken up on list asking for removal of this section (thread subject is "A.5 Issues with ADSP in Operation") while one person has registered opposition to the idea. I don't believe this is anywhere close to critical mass for consensus. I've opened the subject issue