[dmarc-ietf] New DMARC WG, was Re: DKIM through mailing lists (rebutting MLs won't change)

2014-05-30 Thread Steven M Jones
On 05/30/2014 11:28 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Murray S. Kucherawy writes: > > > > DMARC change is even more off the table than MLM software change > > > (which does, as you suggest, evolve over time). > > > > Are there changes people want to make? > > I am of the opinion that the techni

[dmarc-ietf] New DMARC WG, was Re: DKIM through mailing lists (rebutting MLs won't change)

2014-05-30 Thread Steven M Jones
On 05/30/2014 10:20 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Friday, May 30, 2014 17:07:30 Elizabeth Zwicky wrote: >> On 5/29/14, 8:44 PM, "Scott Kitterman" wrote: >>> DMARC change is even more off the table than MLM software change >> DMARC changes are not off the table for Yahoo. ... > Great. Then inst

Re: [dmarc-ietf] New DMARC WG, was Re: DKIM through mailing lists (rebutting MLs won't change)

2014-05-30 Thread Douglas Otis
On May 30, 2014, at 6:46 PM, Steven M Jones wrote: > On 05/30/2014 10:20 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> On Friday, May 30, 2014 17:07:30 Elizabeth Zwicky wrote: >>> On 5/29/14, 8:44 PM, "Scott Kitterman" wrote: DMARC change is even more off the table than MLM software change >>> DMARC chan

Re: [dmarc-ietf] New DMARC WG, was Re: DKIM through mailing lists (rebutting MLs won't change)

2014-05-31 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Friday, May 30, 2014 18:46:45 Steven M Jones wrote: > On 05/30/2014 10:20 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Friday, May 30, 2014 17:07:30 Elizabeth Zwicky wrote: > >> On 5/29/14, 8:44 PM, "Scott Kitterman" wrote: > >>> DMARC change is even more off the table than MLM software change > >> > >>