On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 12:27 PM Todd Herr <todd.herr= 40valimail....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 12:17 PM Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I have to agree with Seth's comments that "security teams believe an SPF >> hard fail is more secure". >> I've been on the receiving end of that discussion more than once. >> >> Also, can we reference those two M3AAWG documents ? That seems like >> operational guidance. >> >> > I'm digesting the threads for the purpose of preparing tickets to track > the work, and I suspect one of the tickets will include, "Add reference > to the following two M3AAWG documents": > > 1. > > https://www.m3aawg.org/sites/default/files/m3aawg_managing-spf_records-2017-08.pdf > 2. > > https://www.m3aawg.org/sites/default/files/m3aawg-email-authentication-recommended-best-practices-09-2020.pdf > > > Todd, Yes, those seem like the documents I found on the m3aawg site. I had recently read the "Past and Future of the PSL" document to use as a possible reference, but it did not seem to make sense to me. tim
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
