On October 30, 2021 8:47:51 PM UTC, John Levine wrote:
>According to Scott Kitterman :
>>>That usage has proven to work quite well. And some respect for the
>>>installed
>>>base wouldn't hurt.
>>
>>The alternative I suggested is 100% compatible with the installed base. If a
>>domain has p
According to Scott Kitterman :
>>That usage has proven to work quite well. And some respect for the installed
>>base wouldn't hurt.
>
>The alternative I suggested is 100% compatible with the installed base. If a
>domain has published DMARC policy per RFC 7489, the proposed new approach will
>s
On October 30, 2021 6:20:19 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>On Fri 29/Oct/2021 23:29:13 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 10:09:13 PM EDT John Levine wrote:
>>> It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
Until we understand what we want, overall, selecting a
On Fri 29/Oct/2021 23:29:13 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 10:09:13 PM EDT John Levine wrote:
It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
Until we understand what we want, overall, selecting a specific design to
achieve that goal is premature. Both of those approaches w
It appears that Alessandro Vesely said:
>IMHO, we shouldn't throw away the PSL. Most importantly, we should stick to
>the concept of Organizational Domain. We can give an abstract definition of
>the latter in terms of affiliation of some kind. Then the spec can leave it
>to
>developers to
