Issue #99 would need to be resolved if you want to use https as well.
That's really why I brought up the entire issue. It's an easy fix for
email, and not obvious how you fix it for https.
Mike
On 1/25/21 9:41 AM, Seth Blank wrote:
Realized I think we're going in circles. Just posted text that is
status quo that I believe already addresses Michael's concern.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 9:38 AM Murray S. Kucherawy
<superu...@gmail.com <mailto:superu...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 9:32 AM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com
<mailto:m...@mtcc.com>> wrote:
Why is this controversial? Seriously. What is controversial
about saying that the a report should authenticate? The onus
is on the people who say it does not to lay out the case for
why it's not a problem, not me. #98 has a simple piece of text
to remedy this. it's 2021. You don't use unauthenticated data
if you can possibly help it.
I'm not taking a position at this point on the issue, but I think
you should expect that this will come up in external reviews. If
consensus is to maintain the status quo, we might want to say so
explicitly (and why) rather than saying nothing, as the latter
might be interpreted as it having gotten no consideration at all.
-MSK
--
*Seth Blank*| VP, Standards and New Technologies
*e:*s...@valimail.com <mailto:s...@valimail.com>
*p:*415.273.8818
This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential
and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of
individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and
authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure,
copying or distribution of the information included in this
transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately
notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from
your system.
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
