On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote:
> And I agree, but then I also mentioned that we're now operating under the > second phase of the charter, or so the chairs seemed to indicate explicitly > with their "phase 1 is done" message. This citation is in the first; the > proscription against "additional mail authentication technologies" (which > also, by the way, exactly describes ARC) that I'm worried about is in the > second. > Reducing this to my basic issue, setting aside the matter of phases: There's one clause in the charter that says ARC is fine, and one that proscribes it. You appear to be claiming that the first one wins over the second, plain and simple. I don't understand why it's plain and simple. Why do they not have equal effect? Is there some "default allow" nuance when interpreting ambiguous charters? -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
