On November 8, 2018 6:19:38 PM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:53 PM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> > and maybe it can solve the "PSL problem" if we can constrain the
>problem
>> > space to just the DMARC issues instead of recreating the
>> > DBOUND-solve-for-all morass.
>>
>> This problem is simpler than DBOUND. Looking up text policies is
>common
>> to a
>> handful of protocols. A careful wording might make some statements
>> reusable in
>> general, even if the focus is kept on DMARC.
>>
>
>Sure, the DMARC case is half of what DBOUND tried to tackle. If DBOUND
>had
>focused just on the DMARC use case, it would've succeeded.
>
>If possible, we should be careful to create a solution that's
>extensible to
>other use cases, not exclusive of them. Reviewing what DBOUND tried to
>do
>might be very instructive here.
>
>-MSK
Independent of the current discussion about the new PSD DMARC draft, I think
this would be a great idea.
DBOUND was set up to provide, among other things, a specific input that DMARC
needs. The failure of that working group left DMARC with a hole in its design.
Operators use the Mozilla PSL as an ad hoc mechanism to fill that hole.
If we can actually solve the problem in a useful way, then that's great for
DMARC. I propose we add a second work item for this piece of work, since it's
independent of PSD DMARC. If no one else wants to define the work item, I can
do it.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
