Potentially one area of discussion is ARC. Two things come to mind: 1) ARC could benefit from more refinement of interop such as when to generate ARC headers e.g. if the message appears spammy? and how should the ARC-Authentication-Results be reported if there is a local policy override? 2) Considerations on what to do about ARC header spoofing and replay. If it's better to start a separate thread on the list to see if there's enough interest first, I can do that. -Wei
On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 9:15 AM Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> wrote: > What I'm hearing so far is: "Cancel the DMARC session." > > I will do that on Wednesday if I don't hear a reason not to. Please > speak up quickly if you think cancelling is not the right thing. > > Barry > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 8:51 PM Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> > wrote: > > > > We do have a session scheduled for IETF 116. > > > > We do not yet have a preliminary agenda for that session. > > > > So: > > > > 1. Do we, indeed, still need that session to happen? > > > > 2. If so, let's collect an agenda for it. > > > > Document authors definitely NEED TO weigh in. Others, please also > > raise any issues you want to discuss, or make a case for cancelling > > the session. > > > > Thanks, > > Barry > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
