Douglas Otis writes:
> Sorry for not being clear. In the example given, this assumes a
> third-party service might be for a small outfit operating on a thin
> budget using an accounting firm to send messages on their behalf.
The use case is well-understood. I wish you'd stop assuming people
On Nov 25, 2014, at 2:49 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Douglas Otis writes:
>
>> Rather than issuing click through agreements to in essence say "All
>> your email must represent direct transactions from the provider."
>> they could offer users a friendly SMTP compatible and safe solution
>>
On 11/21/2014 12:56 PM, Tim Draegen wrote:
WG,
The work found here:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/trac/wiki/MilestoneOneWiki
..is almost complete. However, there is a note (reinforced by
feedback during the recent in-person meeting) to recast the collected
issues in terms of RFC 5598.
Douglas Otis writes:
> Rather than issuing click through agreements to in essence say "All
> your email must represent direct transactions from the provider."
> they could offer users a friendly SMTP compatible and safe solution
> that provides MUA configurations that expose aligned Sender hea
