<chair hat on> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 5:27 PM Douglas E. Foster < [email protected]> wrote:
> Scott, you misunderstand what this type of standard would look like. It > would defines Use Cases that the device should address, with some > acknowledgement to the tradeoffs between perceived risk and perceived > difficulty of implementation. > If what you're looking to do is drum up interest for working on this and, if there's critical mass to do the work, getting something published, I suggest any of the following: [email protected] (message format discussions) [email protected] (SMTP discussions) [email protected] (ART area general discussions) [email protected] (once you have an actual proposal for work that needs a home) ....possibly others, but those spring immediately to mind. However, I believe Scott is correct that this work is not currently within our charter, and thus it's off-topic for this list. I don't believe there's any working group currently chartered to produce something like what's being proposed here; EXTRA probably comes closest, and I think it's off-topic there too. Some years ago Dave Crocker and I assembled RFC 6647 about greylisting, which was an applicability statement over email in general that talked about how to implement greylisting. You could follow that model if you like, which merits standards track publication, though that means you'll need to convince an AD to sponsor it or form a working group to develop it. If my co-chair concurs, then it's appropriate that this conversation be moved elsewhere. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
