Hector, did you not understand this?: >> We will *not* consider what should happen to >> SPF outside of DMARC, and any discussion of that is *out of scope* for >> this working group under its current charter.
Please stop discussing it. Barry On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 8:23 PM Hector Santos <sant9...@icloud.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 9, 2023, at 4:41 AM, Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> wrote: > > > > Repeating this one point as chair, to make it absolutely clear: > > > > The proposal we're discussing is removing SPF authentication from > > DMARC evaluation *only*. We will *not* consider what should happen to > > SPF outside of DMARC, and any discussion of that is *out of scope* for > > this working group under its current charter. > > > > Barry, as chair > > For the record, from a long time SMTP implementer standpoint, DMARC would be > ignored, dropped, turned off, etc first before any consideration to stop SPF > support. As a Transporter, SPF works. As an Administrator - ADSP, I mean > “Supper ADSP” aka DMARC has been horrible. I, and most people, could easily > deprecate Wildcat! DMARC with no harm and fact, less harm because the false > positives will disappear. My product add-on for wcSMTP, wcDMARC, never did > honor the p=reject|quarantine. It was left for filters and no one hard any > confidence to make it work. > > SPF on the other hand, I don’t see dropped in the name of DMARC. So if it’s > about sparate, but not abandon, that I can support - because it is already > separate. SPF preempts DMARC or any Payload protocol.. > > Thanks > _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
