On 22 Oct 2024, at 20:38, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > I think this might be the most important point that needs discussion before > we Last Call this document. The specific thing that concerns me is that > we're seeking Standards Track status for something that has well documented > interoperability problems, and -- conspicuously, in my view -- this version > of the DMARC specification doesn't improve on any of that since RFC 7489, > which was the tacit agreement between the IESG and the working group. This > should be explained.
It hardly seems like the agreement was tacit when it’s quite explicit in the WG charter. -Jim _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
