On April 6, 2023 5:51:50 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
>On Thu 06/Apr/2023 00:54:15 +0200 Seth Blank wrote:
>> I don't feel strongly about N=10, but I do feel strongly that N=5 is
>> insufficient. My gut feel is that 6 or 7 is likely more than enough to cover
>> all real world examples, but it's a gut feel only and not backed by data.
>
>
>IMHO we could rewrite the algorithm in terms of N (instead of 5) and N-1
>(instead of 4), and then say that N=5 is the value we currently consider good
>but recommend to make it configurable. Or we could leave the text as is (if
>it's easier to understand it that way) and just recommend to not hardcode "5"
>and "4".
>
I don't think everyone picking their own N is going to promote interoperability.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
