It appears that Neil Anuskiewicz <[email protected]> said: >-=-=-=-=-=- >See section V
Enaging with DBOUND is not the same thing as advocating that DBOUND do anything specific. Everyone agrees the PSL is awful, including the people who maintain it. But there's no agreement at all about what would be better. DMARC managed to get away from the PSL because unlike every other PSL application, it can put its own markers in the DNS. Quite a while ago I came up with a tricky way to put the whole PSL in the DNS and do look ups efficiently (one lookup per boundary, which typically means one lookup total.) But people who write web browsers that use it to manage cookies said no, that's too slow, and we haven't made any perceptible progress since then. R's, John >> On Oct 16, 2023, at 6:43 PM, Seth Blank <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > >> I'm sorry, to what are you referring? I co-chair the M3AAWG technical >> committee, and am unaware of any advocacy for relitigating DBOUND... >> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 6:36� �PM Neil Anuskiewicz >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> M3AAWG is advocating for DBOUND as most of you likely know. Does it seem >> a viable alternative? We could sure use the support of M3AAWG. How could >> we earn their support or are they committed to DBOUND? >> >> Perhaps once we prove that DMARCbis works they� ll reconsider. >> >> Neil
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
