On 04/19/2014 04:40 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
On 4/18/2014 12:20 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> We need to answer the question, explicitly, about whether or not the
> sites which are currently honoring the DMARC p=reject policy can be
> assumed to adopt whatever we come up with. Because if the answer is
> no, then your assumption/requirement #2 is flat-out impossible:
Clearly the broadening of DMARC's application is motivating the current
discussion.
However I believe the technical issues that Pete and others are pursuing
does not depend upon DMARC and can have benefits beyond it.
As such, I suggest the focus be on basic issues and benefits, rather
than putting DMARC into the critical path.
Quite right. There may be value in having a way of attaching these
sorts of, I
guess I'll call them recipient semantics, to originator signatures
independent
of their ability to address the current DMARC mess.
I'd suggest to extend this list of assumptions/work-to-do to other
scenario's like Johns 'WSJ mail an article' example and other use cases
which are common on the Internet.
/rolf
_______________________________________________
ietf-822 mailing list
ietf-822(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822