Re: [dmarc-ietf] Summary: Search for some consensus, was: Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

2023-04-29 Thread Douglas Foster
I mentioned you to acknowledge authorship, not to isolate. Your text focused on the mailing list response, which is a separate section from the domain owner warning that Barry raised and Scott developed. As I said, I think both perspectives need to be addressed, because domain owners will

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Summary: Search for some consensus, was: Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

2023-04-29 Thread Hector Santos
> Given that lists are expected to (A) continue making content changes, and (B) > continue accepting all comers, I think we need to embrace From Rewrite as a > necessary consequence of A and B.Unlike Hector, I don't have a problem > with From Rewrite because the act of altering the content

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Summary: Search for some consensus, was: Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

2023-04-29 Thread Douglas Foster
Thank you, Scott. You have done a great job of encouraging progress on a topic with strong emotions. I believe we need warnings to all three participants: - One to domain owners, which Barry started - One to lists and other forwarders, for which Hector has provided a starting point - One to

[dmarc-ietf] Summary: Search for some consensus, was: Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

2023-04-28 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 2:27:18 PM EDT Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 4:15:04 AM EDT Barry Leiba wrote: > > I raised this issue in the DMARC session in Vienna, and have let it > > sit for a while so as not to derail other discussion. As we're pretty > > close to finished