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.
There is no interop issue, and nothing about this aspect of DMARC has changed
since RFC 7489.
If you don't agree please identify the part of the draft that causes the
putported interop problem.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
