On Mon 24/Feb/2025 18:10:33 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 2:53 PM Douglas Foster wrote:
Ale's proposal speaks to a portion of the problem space where DMARC is
used inappropriately and ineffectively. The other list may be the best
place to explore the problem, but the topic is germane to the charter.
This would be germane under Phase I as specified in the charter, but the WG
is very clearly at the tail end of Phase III. I don't believe there is any
intent to adopt new work here once the current two documents are done.
As Alessandro said, "I admin I'm late."
Being late is why, according to a 2020 statement by Seth[*], I waited until
"all open bis tickets in trac are resolved" —in his words.
Now, we might think of the project phases as completely sealed off from each
other, so that once a phase is closed, it can never be reopened. However, it
must be admitted that Phase I, as it stands, hasn't solved much. This addition
may save the day if we fix the framework in which ARC is to be used.
Many people, including myself, were skeptical about ARC because of the
requirement that it be trusted unconditionally. Instead, if the forwarding is
verified by the user, trust is transferred to the latter and the MTA operates
according to the user's will. I'd rather discuss this than the phase sealing
policy...
Best
Ale
--
[*] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/HhfoBzu_RlM4aiMbiLc4BaHjjmc/
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
