1. It is out of the scope of our charter to make any changes to SPF, and that would include making it obsolete or Historic.
2. It is within the scope of our charter to make changes to DMARC, and that would include removing SPF evaluation from it. During the process of making changes to DMARC we can also choose to change the version number (or not). We're discussing (2). We will not discuss (1) at all, in any way. Barry On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 8:55 PM Hector Santos <hsantos=40isdg....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Barry, > > Whoa! Take it easy. > > We are on the DMARC2 thread per topic - a proposal. Not anything for the > current DMARCbis. > > Is the chair suggesting the current charter for DMARCbis should change to > remove SPF? Was the charter changed for this? > > To be clear, DMARC2 is not DMARCbis right now, are you wishing this now? > > Hector > > > > On Jun 9, 2023, at 8:27 PM, Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
