It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
>I don't follow. Section 5.5 is called Domain Owner Actions.
>
>Also, that's the goal for some domains, but not others. We shouldn't
>over-generalize. Personally, I publish DMARC records for the aggregate
>reports. I find them useful.
>Publishing a
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023, at 5:20 PM, Seth Blank wrote:
> When we talk about DMARC and interoperability, we have to remember that there
> are THREE participants within DMARC that need to interoperate, the sender,
> the receiver, and the domain owner. We keep on discussing the sender and
> receiver
On April 5, 2023 10:20:28 PM UTC, Seth Blank
wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 2:57 PM Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>> My understanding is that the IETF doesn't do implementation
>> specifications. I'm not sure what problem that's related to
>> interoperability this is meant to address.
>>
>> I
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 2:57 PM Scott Kitterman wrote:
> My understanding is that the IETF doesn't do implementation
> specifications. I'm not sure what problem that's related to
> interoperability this is meant to address.
>
> I think the ticket should be closed without action
The purpose of
My understanding is that the IETF doesn't do implementation specifications.
I'm not sure what problem that's related to interoperability this is meant to
address.
I think the ticket should be closed without action
If you really think we need this, I think the Enforcement definition needs
https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/issues/96
I tried to write up an INFORMATIONAL paragraph, for ticket #96, and it kept
on coming out strangely and did not feel appropriate in the document as a
section unto itself.
However, I think we can meet the intent of this ticket
