Cool! I'll proofread the whole document within two weeks unless there's a tighter timeline. I've heard talk on the list about rounding the bend on the last lap to the finish.
In addition to proofreading, I'd rewrite for clarity here and there. Then, of course, you could reject any of it. How exactly would I submit my proposed changes? Thanks. Neil On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 7:14 PM John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > Thanks, we can always use more proofreading. I'll put those in the next > pull request. > > > It appears that Neil Anuskiewicz <n...@marmot-tech.com> said: > >-=-=-=-=-=- > > > > I'm not sure if minor things like misspellings, grammar, and other > minutia > >are useful. I figured I'd try to contribute in a small way. If these kinds > >of suggestions are useful, let me know, and I can do more in the future > and > >maybe dive into slightly more. > > > >1. Introduction says: > > > >Abusive email often includes unauthorized and deceptive use of a domain > >name in the "From" *heaader* field defined in [RFC5322] and *refered* to > as > >RFC5322.From. > > > >It should say: > > > >Abusive email often includes unauthorized and deceptive use of a domain > >name in the "From" *header* field defined in [RFC5322] and *referred* to > as > >RFC5322.From. > > > >6. DMARC Feedback > > > >When Domain Owners can see what effect their policies and practices are > >having, they are *better* willing and able to use quarantine and reject > >policies. > > > >It should say: > > > >When Domain Owners can see what effect their policies and practices are > >having, they are *more* willing and able to use quarantine and reject > >policies. > > > >7. Changes from RFC 7489 says: > > > >This section will summarize *thos* changes. > > > >It should say: > > > >This section will summarize *those* changes. > > > >Thanks. > > > >Neil > > > >-=-=-=-=-=- > >[Alternative: text/html] > >-=-=-=-=-=- > > >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
