On Thu 05/Nov/2020 18:45:25 +0100 Seth Blank wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 9:31 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
That's the old spec. The consensus of the working group is to remove the
normative constraint about p= (ticket #49). So now only v= is required.
As Chair, this is not the consensus of the group, nor what ticket #49 (
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/49) says. What we removed was the
normative requirement that p= MUST be the second tag in the record. p= is
still REQUIRED.
Oops, I must have been mistaken with ticket #72. My apologies.
To Todd's point, DMARC is a means of communicating policy between domain
owner and mail receiver regarding how to handle unauthenticated mail. DMARC
does not function without policy.
It still has reporting, though...
If someone believes policy can be spun out into a separate draft, please
upload your suggestion as an I-D and we will discuss it.
An I-D?! What kind of I-D? Couldn't we discuss it informally, just to see
what most people think?
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
