Pete Resnick writes: > Good point: > > Mar 2015 Complete draft specification on DMARC improvements to better > support indirect email flows
Up to this point the discussion on the dmarc mailing list has focused on alternative channels (Otis's TPA-labels, Kucherawy-Crocker's DKIM-Delegate) for communicating authorization, not changes to DMARC. Given that *all* of these specifications focus on authorization rather than denial with the single exception of DMARC's p=reject/quarantine, it's not obvious to me that improvements to DMARC are needed/feasible beyond acknowledging existence of other authorization protocols to which recipient policy may give precedence. How about s/DMARC improvements/protocol improvements/ ? If necessary, a nod to "including changes to DMARC" could be added. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
