> I understand the need to limit scope, if DMARC limits its claims to > what it covers. This complaint was triggered largely with the "MUST > NOT" claim in the draft, which implied that DMARC is the all-inclusive > tool for validating the RFC5322.From address using SPF and DKIM. If > it is all inclusive, it needs to be comprehensive. If not, it should > be clear that other options are possible. I would be satisfied with > changing the "MUST NOT" into a reference to local policy, and > including this language in the scope and goals section.
Which "MUST NOT" in particular? Please cite the section and quote the surrounding text so we're sure about what you're looking for. Barry _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
