On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote:
> The goal, as you state it, is at the level of seeking world peace. It > is very laudable and and very, very broad. It covers vastly more than > the scope of DMARC. > > DMARC is a specific bit of technology working towards that broader goal. > That something happens to fall within this very broad scope does not > automatically justify documenting it within the much narrower scope of a > detailed specification, unless it is part of that specification's > technology. > > The MX record check has no /technical/ relationship to the /technical/ > details of DMARC. > > Please note that I'm not commenting on the efficacy of the record check, > but on the need to document it in a place that makes sense for the full > range of its implementers. > > There are, and will continue to be, plenty of operators using that check > but not DMARC. That simple fact provides a very pragmatic reason for > moving its specification into some document outside of DMARC. > I'm surprised we're not hearing more passionate voices in favor of keeping it given the genesis of the paragraph we're discussing. At any rate, I'm going to take it out in -09, because I just discovered that it's actually directly contradicting what Appendix A.4 says. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
