I am happy to postpone the topic in the interest of moving the experiment forward. Ticket 97 has been created to discuss it later.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 6:23 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 2:11 PM Douglas Foster < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> No Murray, I was speaking to the PSD document. >> >> PSD's entire purpose is to detect abuse of non-existent organizational >> domains, so the definition of non-existent is crucial to its success. I >> believe the current language will produce false positives, albeit probably >> a small number. The current language is also more resource-intensive >> than mine, although that is not my concern. >> > > What I mean is: If we say PSD experiment participants evaluate the notion > of "non-existent" differently than vanilla DMARC implementations, we have > to account for that when interpreting the results of the experiment. But > the experiment as crafted is just to determine if the PSD algorithm as > proposed is a useful improvement. It seems to me that changing the nature > of that test at the same time is scope creep that muddies the waters. > > -MSK >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
