In article <20190523225213.c214620147b...@ary.qy>, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: >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.
On the other hand, if you want to write separate non-normative tutorials for the reporting part and the policy part, sure, go ahead. -- Regards, John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
