On 23 Dec 2024, at 17:22, John R Levine wrote: >>> So would I but there's way too many SPF-only DMARC users and it would be a >>> breaking change. >> >> So we have SPF-only DMARC users, and DKIM-only DMARC users, and they could >> easily come to opposite conclusions about the same message. Maybe it’s not >> interoperability in the same sense as disjoint cipher suites, but this seems >> like an interoperability problem to me. > > Um, this would be a good time to reread RFC 7489,
I don’t see why something in a previous informational specification would have any bearing on the interoperability characteristics here. If there’s something there that needs to be said in dmarcbis, it should be in dmarcbis. -Jim _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
