On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Douglas Otis doug.mtv...@gmail.com wrote:
While the PSL might be useful for offering some web related assertions,
its current form is inappropriate for email policy. Those working on the
web/email related issues might hope these common concerns will engender
On Aug 29, 2014, at 11:06 AM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
On 8/29/14 12:35 PM, Tim Draegen wrote:
On Aug 29, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Pete Resnickpresn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
Tim/Ned [Ccing WG]:
While I think the milestones that appear in the wiki are great for
On Aug 29, 2014, at 3:07 PM, Douglas Otis doug.mtv...@gmail.com wrote:
The charter statement indicates work on a public suffix concept is
out-of-scope. This is fine provided the definition used in the charter is
retained:
[snip]
Such policy assertions should be a matter handled within the
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Tim Draegen t...@eudaemon.net wrote:
Simply put, the public suffix concept is useful beyond what DMARC requires
of it. The best that DMARC can do (as a piece of technology) is fully
articulate 1 specific use case for the public suffix concept, and hope that
On Aug 29, 2014, at 12:58 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy superu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Tim Draegen t...@eudaemon.net wrote:
Simply put, the public suffix concept is useful beyond what DMARC requires of
it. The best that DMARC can do (as a piece of technology) is
