On Fri 21/Apr/2023 05:41:03 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On April 20, 2023 4:18:08 PM UTC, Dotzero <dotz...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 11:38 AM John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:
It appears that Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> said:
IMHO at least an appendix should say that if you can't do anything
better you have to rewrite From: with examples of legitimate
display-phrase, expanding a bit the first bullet in Section 11.4.
That can also be a good place to explain the kind of damage DMARC
causes. >>>
Absolutely not. This sort of thing is utterly outside the scope of our
job and wasting time on it just further delays our already extremely
late work.
+1
There are many things John and I may disagree on but he clearly understands
why avoiding scope creep (and bad ideas) is important.
Definitely agree with both of you on this.
Eeeh, what an uprising! I just proposed a couple of paragraphs, not a new
rocket science theory.
As for the badness, why wouldn't a concise but detailed explanation be better
than obscure forbiddings and dark forebodings, such as MUST NOT be used by
humans or interoperability will break down?
BTW, what's the outcome of that discussion?
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
