On Thu 08/Nov/2018 01:23:10 +0100 Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 9:42 PM Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> wrote: > >> >> The registry is meant to be a solution to the 'what about .com' problem >> you mention. It's a solution, not necessarily the best or only one. >> >> I'd suggest we adopt the draft/work item and then try to figure it out. >> > > +1 - this is a good problem for the WG to wrestle with;
Agreed > and maybe it can solve the "PSL problem" if we can constrain the problem > space to just the DMARC issues instead of recreating the > DBOUND-solve-for-all morass. This problem is simpler than DBOUND. Looking up text policies is common to a handful of protocols. A careful wording might make some statements reusable in general, even if the focus is kept on DMARC. Best Ale _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
