On Wed 12/Apr/2023 07:10:26 +0200 Neil Anuskiewicz wrote:
On Apr 11, 2023, at 9:25 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 8:25 PM Neil Anuskiewicz wrote:
The standard and the document should reflect that it’s already making a
massive difference and could do even more.
The IETF is a consensus-based organization. I suggest that if we're going to
claim DMARC as-is has the consensus of the community, that community needs to
be representative of the interests of the MLM developers and operators. Since
we keep talking about "them", I don't think it is.
Expecting them to adapt (or perhaps "comply" is the better word) merely
because we say so feels a lot like pushing on a string.
Some strings seem to be quite pushable. I'm not so much into string theory,
but recall threads like this:
http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/KvSFv66Mz8UipXQ0477UgO5WKio
Is there really going to be language in the new standard saying general purpose
domains must be p=none type of language? That’s quite a compromise if it’s the
case. Like all of us I’m busy and tired so maybe didn’t read everything
including nuance. I thought the gist of one bit was that “general purpose”
domains must have a p=none. What is a general purpose domain? Like could the org
domain of some organization be called general purpose?
A similar discussion was made at the times of ADSP. A good explanation of the
intent is given in this post:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-dkim/EC8IQuaYwAZ4FeoKBsgICisRwSQ/
Note that Brett McDowell writes from paypal-inc.com, a domain created purposely
to be general purpose.
We all know where that path leads.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
