> On Mar 1, 2024, at 5:39 PM, John R Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Mar 2024, Seth Blank wrote: >>> 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. > > That would be fine with me. I proposed an http method similar to the one for > mta-sts and everyone said no need, mail is plenty fast. I have mta-sts https > set up and indeed, basically nobody uses it.
Now. But do you think it has ponptential to catch on? _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
