On 5/23/19 3:52 PM, John Levine 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.
MTA-STS and TLSRPT started out as one document as well, and separated quite cleanly IMO. I'm not sure what kind of incompatibilities you think might be created. -Jim _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
