In article <5c2fc1da-ae7c-2efe-fda3-47855d61a...@bluepopcorn.net> you write: >There are domains that would like to receive reports, but whose usage of >mail doesn't make it useful to express a policy. Conversely, there are >domains that want to express a policy but aren't interested in reports. >I'd like to advocate that DMARC be split up into two different documents >dealing with reporting and policy separately. If it's useful to have a >separate document that defines what it means to be "DMARC-compliant" >that is referenced by both, that would be OK.
Given that we already have one document, I would be very strongly opposed to this. It's fine to fix things that are wrong, but trying to restructure it retroactively will inevitably lead to accidental incompatibilities. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
