> If it's better to start a separate thread on the list to see if there's > enough interest first, I can do that.
Indeed: We should not be using meeting time for a discussion that hasn't already started on the mailing list. Please do start the discussion here, and if we decide we need a virtual interim for it in April, I think that's a better approach. Barry On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 3:02 AM Wei Chuang <[email protected]> wrote: > > Potentially one area of discussion is ARC. Two things come to mind: > 1) ARC could benefit from more refinement of interop such as when to generate > ARC headers e.g. if the message appears spammy? and how should the > ARC-Authentication-Results be reported if there is a local policy override? > 2) Considerations on what to do about ARC header spoofing and replay. > If it's better to start a separate thread on the list to see if there's > enough interest first, I can do that. > -Wei > > On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 9:15 AM Barry Leiba <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> What I'm hearing so far is: "Cancel the DMARC session." >> >> I will do that on Wednesday if I don't hear a reason not to. Please >> speak up quickly if you think cancelling is not the right thing. >> >> Barry >> >> On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 8:51 PM Barry Leiba <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > We do have a session scheduled for IETF 116. >> > >> > We do not yet have a preliminary agenda for that session. >> > >> > So: >> > >> > 1. Do we, indeed, still need that session to happen? >> > >> > 2. If so, let's collect an agenda for it. >> > >> > Document authors definitely NEED TO weigh in. Others, please also >> > raise any issues you want to discuss, or make a case for cancelling >> > the session. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Barry >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmarc mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
