On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Douglas Otis doug.mtv...@gmail.com wrote:
While the PSL might be useful for offering some web related assertions,
its current form is inappropriate for email policy. Those working on the
web/email related issues might hope these common concerns will engender
On 8/30/14 12:52 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Pete Resnick writes:
Good point:
Mar 2015Complete draft specification on DMARC improvements to better
support indirect email flows
Up to this point the discussion on the dmarc mailing list has focused
on alternative channels (Otis's
On Aug 30, 2014, at 9:57 AM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
We in the WG understand what we mean, and we can certainly be clear about it
in the wiki. But I see no need for a change to the milestone text.
Almost had some crosstalk..
Stephen, the wiki is supposed to make this
On Aug 29, 2014, at 11:39 PM, Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com wrote:
Since this is the WG list, I'm not sure if this is still the right list for
issues with the base spec or not, but here goes ...
Right list. Just to set precedent, any thoughts on this issue will be captured
in the WG's
On 8/30/2014 7:12 AM, Tim Draegen wrote:
On Aug 29, 2014, at 11:39 PM, Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com wrote:
Since this is the WG list, I'm not sure if this is still the right list for
issues with the base spec or not, but here goes ...
Right list.
...
While this might be a
On Aug 30, 2014, at 7:12 AM, Tim Draegen t...@eudaemon.net wrote:
On Aug 29, 2014, at 11:39 PM, Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com wrote:
Since this is the WG list, I'm not sure if this is still the right list for
issues with the base spec or not, but here goes ...
Right list. Just to
