On Wed 11/May/2016 18:00:25 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote: > It certainly seems that the working group is interested in discussing > ARC, as I can judge from the discussion in the short time since Kurt's > proposal. So let's go back and get a proper answer: > > Does anyone object to having the DMARC working group take on this work? > Does anyone object to using the two documents above as starting points > for that work?
ARC, as currently documented and conceived, aims at "a more nuanced interpretation to guide any local policies related to messages that arrive with broken domain authentication (DMARC)." It does not propose any DMARC improvement, let alone phase 2 milestone. Unless ARC commits to a purpose congenial with DMARC's charter, I'd find it objectionable for this WG to take on its work. > Does anyone have an alternative proposal? The "least broken" proposal for phase 2 seems to be dkim-conditional. It emerged as an originator protocol, so it can develop without muddying ARC. > Please respond to this list, <dmarc@ietf.org>, by 20 May. On it, but I doubt ARC consensus will be apparent by that date. Ale _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
