In article <cal0qlwatzpxt2r4l5phjicv6kjp9jx6zucknfjv5avf+xy+...@mail.gmail.com> you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- > > To the rest of the WG: Is there consensus to make this change or the >others being proposed?
Not that I've seen. I thought we agreed to make changes to support ARC, to handle EAI, and to fix any actual errors. Other than that, leave it alone. R's, John > >I feel like we're making a lot more edits here than the WG intended to >make. It's fine if the WG wants to turn this into a larger editorial pass, >but I thought the updates here were tightly scoped before, namely just >enough to allow ARC to do what it needs. > >I'm inclined to resist, absent consensus, any changes that are other than >(a) something ARC needs, or (b) something clearly incorrect. > >On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:16 AM, Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote: > >> >> In that case, if the producer intent is not to harm or mislead, the >> trust >> >> in this field's content would be proportional to the estimated >> quality of >> >> the producer's software. Consumer's wisdom is key. >> > >> > How is a receiver to know anything about the estimated quality of the >> > producer's software? ... _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
