On 10/28/2014 4:16 PM, Brett McDowell wrote:
Brett McDowell wrote:
I suspect there was a purpose for that argument that might still be
relevant to our work even though the argument doesn’t seem to be supported,
but I’m not seeing it yet.
Hector Santos <hsan...@isdg.net> wrote:
Thats unfortunate, because based on your marketing efforts (spams from
agari regarding presentations you are making), you should be on top of
these very important total mail integration concepts.
Hector, don't confuse your inability to put forward a coherent argument
with my inability to understand these concepts.
Thats it? Is that all you have, is to attack my integrity? I won't
bother to issue an complaint to the WG chairs. I wasn't attacking
you. You questioned the concept and reasons for the DKIM Policy
framework discussions when in fact, DMARC is all about a policy layer
for DKIM/SPF. I felt its unfortunate you are not seeing the problem.
There is a 184 references towards the idea. There is a long time
history and tons of R&D work. There is a problem regarding 3rd party
signers. What else is there to understand?
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
