In article ,
Jeremy Harris wrote:
>> New version: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-usage-06
>
>How about another subsection 5.x saying when Originating ADMDs should
>take any ARC action? For starting a new ARC chain I assume the answer
>is normally "don't" - but perhaps there is
In article
you write:
>I'd like to recommend that we (DMARC-WG) accept
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kitterman-dmarc-psd-00 into our work
>queue. It aligns with our charter already.
OK with me. I'd like a clearer explanation of what problem it solves,
but that should be fixable.
_
In article <3eea2f77-8aea-4f49-80f3-d96b639c3...@isode.com> you write:
> Note that in an EAI-formatted message, this identifier may be
> expressed in UTF-8.
>
>So I decided to check whether this statement is actually true.
Oops.
>OLD:
>
>"value" is as defined in Section 5.1 of [MIME].
>
In article
you
write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>At least 7601bis will be an RFC at the same time as this one is, if not
>sooner. I don't know what the plans are for the other one.
Also see Scott's LC comment on 7601bis. There's a bunch of stuff in 7601 not
in the new draft, so 7601bis is really an update
