Seems like we might want to discuss specific steps toward the next
milestone per our charter. I think that ARC is a method of "support[ing]
indirect mail flows" but we haven't even discussed the other brainstorm
ideas that were tossed into the charter (listed below). Are all of these
items necessary to get DMARC put onto a standards track or were they just
ideas floated at the time DMARC-WG was chartered so that we'd have some
things to discuss?


(part of 2) Improvements in DMARC features (identifier alignment,
reporting, policy preferences) will be considered, such as:

- Enumeration of data elements required in "Failure" reports (specifically
to address privacy issues)
- Handling potential reporting abuse
- Aggregate reporting to support additional reporting scenarios
- Alternate reporting channels
- Utility of arbitrary identifier alignment
- Utility of a formalized policy exception mechanism

3. DMARC Usage

The working group will document operational practices in terms of
configuration, installation, monitoring, diagnosis and reporting. It will
catalog currently prevailing guidelines as well as developing advice on
practices that are not yet well-established but which are believed to be

The group will consider separating configuration and other deployment
information that needs to be in the base spec, from information that should
be in a separate guide.
and the corresponding work items:

Phase II:

- Specification of DMARC improvements to support indirect mail flows

- Draft Guide on DMARC Usage

Phase III:

- Review and refinement of the DMARC specification

- Completion of Guide on DMARC Usage

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 5:02 AM, Barry Leiba <>

> I have uploaded a preliminary session agenda here:
> If anyone has adjustments to propose, including any specific items to
> add to the "next steps" discussion, please post here.
> Barry
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
dmarc mailing list

Reply via email to