On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 7:51 PM Douglas Foster < [email protected]> wrote:
> I would be happy with p=signed, because that is what p=reject means, and > it is our job is to ensure that people interpret the signal correctly. > Quoting the charter: "The working group will seek to preserve interoperability with the installed base of DMARC systems, and provide detailed justification for any non-interoperability." Changing one of the valid "p=" values seems to me to be the opposite of "preserve interoperability with the installed base", so the bar is high to make this change. Can the problem you're trying to address be handled in any other way? Say, improved informational prose? -MSK, participating
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
