On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 2:12 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 7:31 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote: > >> > - #62 makes reporting mandatory, which leaves the mail receiver with no >> > means to mitigate the privacy threat. >> > > #62 (assuming it has WG consensus) makes it clear we really want reporting > to be mandatory, but at a glance I don't see any "MUST generate" sort of > language in the draft. It may be in the other draft, but I haven't looked > there yet. This draft does a pretty firm job of extolling the virtues of > report generation, however. > > Personally, I think mandatory reporting wouldn't survive Last Call or IESG > Evaluation. Even if it did, there's no mechanism to enforce it (i.e., > operators that don't want to send such reports simply won't, and that's > that), other than maybe industry peer pressure, so I think what's in the > draft is as close as we can get. > > #62 is not consensus. #62 was the impetus for the proposed text on the topic that is Section 6.7.5 in draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-01. -- *Todd Herr* | Sr. Technical Program Manager *e:* todd.h...@valimail.com *m:* 703.220.4153 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
