On Sun 01/Aug/2021 20:56:55 +0200 Douglas Foster wrote:
Ale, I tried to explain my objections in the original post. However, it is a
very important question, so I am happy to revise and extend my points.
Forgive me for being long-winded , I am trying to be thorough because I see
problems a
On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 4:38 PM John Levine wrote:
> I'd make it a lot simpler:
>
>pct: (plain-text integer; OPTIONAL; default is 100). For the
> RFC5322.From domain to which the DMARC record applies, the "pct"
> tag describes what receivers are requested to to do with unaligned
On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 3:49 PM Todd Herr wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 4:38 PM John Levine wrote:
>
>> I'd make it a lot simpler:
>>
>>pct: (plain-text integer; OPTIONAL; default is 100). For the
>> RFC5322.From domain to which the DMARC record applies, the "pct"
>> tag de
It appears that Todd Herr said:
>> I like simple, but I also like the idea of a separate section that
>discusses the history of the pct tag and why the old values won't work any
>longer.
OK except:
> remains the default, and "0". The value of "0" took on unintended
> significance during th
On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 12:49 PM Todd Herr wrote:
> And this:
>
>
> 6.7.4. History of the "pct" Tag
>
> [...]
>
I suggest making this an appendix instead of leaving it up in the normative
area, with an appropriate forward reference.
And +1 to Michael's point about "experimental".
-MSK
