Stephen,
This is not about you and me. POLICY has been reestablished as the
DKIM framework long ago. It just had taking a white before its impact
was felt. Things were neglected and we are here today to finally try
to resolve the issues for LIST operators.
But DKIM DOMAIN POLICY is HERE. No need to prove that anymore.
Doug's TPA proposal is now officially part of the charter. I wanted
Murray's simpler version of the solution for the 3rd party extension.
TPA is actually very simple, the spec is complex. So if that is
where we go, we go.
But until them are we wasting time? Yes, I think so.
Thanks and have a great day.
--
HLS
On 10/23/2014 6:50 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Murray S. Kucherawy writes:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Hector Santos <hsan...@isdg.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm already lost of whats going on. It seems we are waiting of Murray. Its
> > all Murray. Geez, Its all really Murray's framework to all this. Not a
> > negative, but there has to be more. There is more. There has always been
> > more, that is why we are lost here after 9 years.
> >
>
> Sorry, but I have no idea what this is about. The only thing I think
> anyone's waiting on me for is a revision to draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base for
> publication as an RFC through the ISE. It will contain no technical
> changes, so either way, this WG shouldn't be blocked waiting on me for
> anything.
+1. I don't think it's blocked on Murray; I certainly am not waiting
on Murray (or anybody else) for anything. I just don't have time to
do much more than I already have done, nor any pressing new ideas that
make it worth sacrificing other work to get them out in front of
people immediately.
As for the "there is more", I don't agree with your position on Domain
Owner control of all uses of mailboxes. As I see it, most Domains
where the mailboxes are primarily for transactional mail flows already
have that control and enforce it externally to Internet standards, and
p=reject works fine for them. Domains where the mailboxes are used by
individuals for personal use don't have the control and can't exercise
it, and another Internet standard won't help -- it will be honored
more in the breach than the observance just as Yahoo!'s "p=reject" is
already.
I gather that most WG participants are closer to my position than to
yours, which is why no progress is being made in the direction you
think best. You're going to have to stop asserting your position, and
start persuading others of its correctness, if you want to move
discussion in that direction.
Regards,
Steve
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
