On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 11:30 AM Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 12/30/20 8:22 AM, Dotzero wrote: > > > DMARC != Auth-res. Auth-res provides all kinds of useful information than >> just pass/fail. For DMARC Auth-res should provide what the policy was at a >> bare minimum. But none of this seems to have any normative language >> anywhere which is a problem unto itself. DMARC in auth-res seems to be an >> orphan. >> >> Mike >> > > You just stated the case as to why this discussion should be ruled out of > scope. " DMARC != Auth-res." and " DMARC in auth-res seems to be an orphan" > > This is the IETF DMARC working group, not the AUTH-RES working group. You > gave the example of someone writing a crappy Thunderbird extension as a > reason for the working group to change its focus. Perhaps getting the > extension author to fix their extension might be a more fruitful effort. > > > Because the author *can't* fix their extension for the 100th time. There > is no normative mechanism for transporting the DMARC state in the auth-res > header. And if the working group is not willing to do its part for auth > res, then auth-res should just be moved to historic since there is nobody > to maintain it, and no place to discuss its shortcomings. Requiring every > downstream MTA and MUA to do DMARC policy checks would be a mess and *that* > is most certainly in scope as scaling is an internet issue. > > Mike > And for the second time, that is not a DMARC problem, it is an auth-res problem. It is also a problem for someone who writes an extension without understanding what they are presenting to the end user. Michael Hammer
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
