On March 30, 2024 11:27:42 PM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superu...@gmail.com> wrote: >On only the charter point: > >On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 2:27 PM Jim Fenton <fen...@bluepopcorn.net> wrote: > >> >> >> ??? Not Found >> >> ------------- >> >> >> >> I expected to find some text at least recommending a rewriting strategy >> for From addresses to be used by mailing lists and the like. >> > >> > That would be extremely out of scope, not to mention something likely to >> get the IESG to kick it back to us. >> >> The WG charter lists as the phase 1 work item for this WG, “Draft >> description of interoperability issues for indirect mail flows and >> plausible methods for reducing them.” This was published as RFC 7950 >> (informational). On the contrary, I would expect IESG to kick it back for >> not even informatively referencing that work here. >> > >I concur with Jim that rewriting strategies are in scope for the WG >according to its charter, especially if we have something to recommend >going forward. RFC 7950 is informational and while it does discuss the >issues in significant detail, it also falls short of making a specific >recommendation. > >What's probably debatable here is whether the WG wants to include such a >recommendation as part of the Proposed Standard it's aiming to put >forward. And keep in mind that the IETF still gets its Last Call to review >the proposed document before the IESG gets it; the absence (or, indeed, the >presence) of such advice might be significant then.
I think that we concluded that we didn't. I don't think there's anything new here to debate. I don't know what the IETF consensus will be, but I believe the WG concluded that standardizing such a thing would be inappropriate. People implement horrible hacks all the time to get things to work. It doesn't follow that they are worth documenting as correct. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
