This would be a major incompatible change to DMARC, so no.
R's,
John
It appears that Douglas Foster said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>Alternative token design.
>
>
>Boundary=A (Above only)
>
>Literal: The domain owner asserts that an organizational/administrative
>boundary exists between the current doma
Doug, Barry's email sent as Chair was clear and specific:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 8:33 AM Barry Leiba wrote:
> We have come to a point in our discussions of
> draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis that the basic content and features of DMARC
> are stable and have rough consensus. Coupling that with the
> e
On Thursday, August 25, 2022 1:43:49 PM EDT Barry Leiba wrote:
> > On Wed 24/Aug/2022 21:40:20 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote:
> > > I think “SHOULD do what the domain owner says” is too strong, and
> > > propose to change it. By making it that strong we vary from the
> > > policy that recipients use all
On Friday, August 26, 2022 11:51:51 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Fri 26/Aug/2022 17:21:09 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote:
> > Personally, I'm fine with the text here, but I would also be happy
> > with removal of the BCP 14 key words here, like this:
> >
> > NEW
> > If the set produced by the DNS
I’m happy with Scott’s suggestion.
Barry
On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 5:11 PM Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 1:43:49 PM EDT Barry Leiba wrote:
> > > On Wed 24/Aug/2022 21:40:20 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote:
> > > > I think “SHOULD do what the domain owner says” is too strong, and
>
You really think it needs to be BCP 14 key words, rather than saying in
plain English that if there’s no DMARC record we are outside the realm of
DMARC?
Barry
On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 5:15 PM Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> On Friday, August 26, 2022 11:51:51 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> > On Fri
Seth is right here: Doug, your message doesn't comply with what I've
asked people to do, in two ways: it's asking for a change to something
we already have consensus on and it's not proposing specific text
changes.
That said, there are two mitigating factors. For the latter, the
request is specif
I do. Maybe I'm wrong and I've just read far to many crazy ideas preceded by
"It doesn't actually say you CAN'T do that". I would strongly prefer we be as
direct and blunt about this as possible, even though that's probably
insufficient to the task in at least some cases.
I know Ale liked you
On Saturday, August 27, 2022 6:22:34 PM EDT Barry Leiba wrote:
> Seth is right here: Doug, your message doesn't comply with what I've
> asked people to do, in two ways: it's asking for a change to something
> we already have consensus on and it's not proposing specific text
> changes.
>
> That sai
I'm not sure if minor things like misspellings, grammar, and other minutia
are useful. I figured I'd try to contribute in a small way. If these kinds
of suggestions are useful, let me know, and I can do more in the future and
maybe dive into slightly more.
1. Introduction says:
Abusive email oft
Thanks, we can always use more proofreading. I'll put those in the next pull
request.
It appears that Neil Anuskiewicz said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
> I'm not sure if minor things like misspellings, grammar, and other minutia
>are useful. I figured I'd try to contribute in a small way. If these kinds
It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
>> - If you disagree with Doug's proposal, please clearly and concisely
>> explain why the benefit he is proposing is not useful enough to
>> introduce the incompatibility.
>
>I did read it. I see zero benefit to it.
I also looked at it and find extra compl
Thanks, Scott and John.
Doug, it’s down to you at this point to show a clear benefit, keeping in
mind that we’ve already established that the current PSD= tag is needed in
only a very small number of domains, limiting the affect on existing
implementations to that small number.
What are others no
Cool! I'll proofread the whole document within two weeks unless there's a
tighter timeline. I've heard talk on the list about rounding the bend on
the last lap to the finish.
In addition to proofreading, I'd rewrite for clarity here and there. Then,
of course, you could reject any of it.
How exac
If you're feeling really enterprising you can do a github pull request,
but sending the suggested changes to this list is fine.
On Sat, 27 Aug 2022, Neil Anuskiewicz wrote:
Cool! I'll proofread the whole document within two weeks unless there's a
tighter timeline. I've heard talk on the list a
15 matches
Mail list logo
