On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 6:53 PM Seth Blank <[email protected]> wrote:
> None of this is in scope. We’re deciding whether to publish the document > or not. > > Please keep your comments within chartered grounds. > > Seth, as Chair > > -mobile > Seth, Can you clarify your statement regarding scope? From the IESG recharter email: " This instance of the DMARC working group is chartered for the sole purpose of completing the “failure reporting” document and sending it to the IESG for publication as a Standards Track item, or removing failure reporting from DMARC in its entirety" It would seem to me a discussion of what would be needed to meet the "completing" part of the recharter.should be in scope. As far as deciding whether to move forward vs removing references in the base document, we only have one set of meaningful data provided by Ale. That data indicates sufficient interest (~64% of domains requesting AUF reports requesting RUF reports) on the part of senders/owners/administrators to justify completing the document. We also know that failure reports are being provided by some large receivers even if only through back channels based on contractual relationships. It would be a shame if this working group deprecated the RUF document and ensured that failure information will only ever be available in a private club//pay to play model. AUF reports are very useful in combating abuse..A receiver can identify attacks in minutes and can also take action in minutes for take downs, submitting to block lists, etc. AUF reports provide evidence when sending demand letters threatening legal action against hosting providers for malicious websites, webpages and image hosting. With discussion shut down I am getting the sense that the clock is being run out. Michael Hammer
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
