It appears that Tobias Herkula <tobias.herk...@1und1.de> said: >However, such a fundamental shift in the protocol's architecture warrants a >clear signifier. I suggest we upgrade >our DMARC version string from the current state to 'DMARC2.' This upgrade >would not only denote the change of SPF >removal, but also the switch from the Public Suffix List (PSL) to the >Tree-Walk algorithm.
I was talking with someone from a Very Large Mail Provider who told me that if we keep the same version number, they won't change what they do now, so no tree walk even if we keep SPF. They understand that as things stand now, the results of the PSL and the tree walk are in practice the same. Their concern is that if some people do it the old way and some the new, and you can't tell which the domain expects, bad guys will create records with deliberately inconsistent results. I'm not sure how likely that is, but arguing with a gorilla rarely turns out well. I will see if I can talk to people at other VLMPs and see how widespread this concern is. R's, John PS: If we do bump the version number, it needs to go into the aggregate reports, too. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
