> The point of the Tree Walk was to detect and prevent the problems caused by > PSL errors.
The point of the tree walk was twofold: 1. To eliminate the PSL in DMARC, as the PSL was not designed to be used by DMARC and has problems in its application to DMARC as a result. 2. To provide a mechanism for domains to be explicit about what they want, when that explicitness is needed. I believe we have consensus that we have accomplished both of those. If someone can show that in the process we have made the existing situation significantly worse, we need to consider the implications of that. I don't believe we're in that state now. We knew that there would be differences for a small portion of domains. In some cases those differences are good, as they better reflect what's intended, and perhaps in some cases the differences are neutral (neither mechanism gives the answer we really should be getting). For cases where the differences are worse -- the PSL reflected what was intended and the tree walk does not -- the domains in question need to apply (2) above, and it would be great if we could do some outreach to those domain to suggest that they update their DMARC records accordingly. I don't think that any of this is, with the data we have now, at the level that it merits reconsideration of switching to the tree walk. Barry _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
