On 12/7/20 1:00 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 2:26 PM Michael Thomas <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
This is why we need actual numbers instead of anecdotes about the
long
tail. We know that there is no silver bullet. Mailing lists who are
configured in a way that causes their traffic to not get delivered
can
be configured in a way that will. It's not our problem.
Are you talking about integrating ARC? Then you are correct, operational
data. This is why until that happens, we're not talking about adding
ARC into
the DMARC flow, and it's why the ARC work is Out Of Scope in this WG.
Do you mean that it is out of scope wrt DMARC? I can understand that
since it's an experiment. It would probably be best documented in the
context of ARC itself and dealt with if it ever becomes standards track.
In the mean time, reject should mean reject.
As it turns out, rfc 7489 does seem to document the issue though.
Mike
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
