On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Vlatko Salaj <[email protected]> wrote:
> > truth be told, considering that majority of > DMARC developers don't care about our > 3rd party requirements, having three separate > proposals with little support for each is > worse than getting one with a better support. > > I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I'd bet that a third party mechanism that scales and is relatively painless to add on would get proper consideration. So far none of the ones that have been proposed, including my own, have gotten the necessary traction; that could be because they're flawed, or they're not being communicated or demonstrated well, or a combination of those. That's not the same as "don't care", which I think is an unfair and untrue claim. > consolidation of our efforts may be more > fruitful. > I fully agree that's worth trying. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
