On 12/28/20 11:03 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 7:23 AM <[email protected]
<mailto:ned%[email protected]>> wrote:
P.S. I hadn't looked at RFC 6589 before, and I have to say I find its
standards-track status to be nothing short of astonishing. How on
earth do you
assess interoperability?
With the benefit of hindsight, that's a great question. I'd have been
happy with Informational. Indeed, the IESG evaluation record shows
several ADs brought that up, but none of them insisted, and thus it
didn't get changed.
What I had always expected to happen was, among other things, that MUA's
would use it for like a web-like padlock too. At that point you have a
protocol consumer. It's sort of disappointing they by and large don't
from what I've seen. Hence my question on another thread DMARC fail,
with p=none. That seems wrong and would definitely send the wrong signal
to the MUA on how to mark it up.
Mike, who has now hacked on a thunderbird extension
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
