Seth Blank writes:
On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 6:00 PM John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:
It appears that Todd Herr <todd.h...@valimail.com> said:
>Below please find the current text (rev -30) and my proposed replacement
>text.
It seems OK but I would say that at this point that mailto: URI are the
only ones currently defined.
Participating, to this point. Throwing out an idea, that may be
spectacularly bad:
mailto: is the only function that's ever been used. We even discussed
exploring other mechanisms, and consensus was to drop that exploration. I
can't find the ticket quickly, but I know it was covered early on during
the bis work.
Do we just want to dramatically simplify this, and throw the "mailto:"; into
the reporting ABNF and call it a day? It would dramatically streamline the
text.
I may be dumb, but don't see the improvement:
A Mail Receiver MUST implement support for a "mailto:"; URI
A Mail Receiver MUST implement support for a URI
I'm not sure the format description is the right place for those normative
statements. The text would become simpler if they are moved away.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
