My position is that any attempt to deprecate failure reporting is an attempt to be the Internet police, which many have said is not our job.
Therefore the only acceptable options are to bless the instructions in RFC 7489 no or to restate them, possibly with clarifications, as in the current draft. Given the new structure of other documents, completing this document seems the better choice. As for purpose, the purpose of DMARC is to inhibit crime. Optimizing the setup of legitimate senders is only a way station to that goal. All of my objections to the new documents are centered on how little they do, as written, to inhibit crime, and how much more could have been achieved if there had been vision. Clear enough? Doug On Fri, Jun 27, 2025, 12:54 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 5:06 AM Douglas Foster < > dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Are you willing to tell this long list of companies that we are >> deprecating one of their product lines because they are taking money from >> customers for a "service" that adds no value, while also taking data they >> should not have? >> > > I don't think this question is material to a standards body. The question > with which I believe the IETF is concerned is limited to whether this part > of DMARC is (a) valuable to make the Internet work better; (b) [likely to > be] in broad use, justifying standardization; and (c) not clearly flawed or > inferior to something else. > > -MSK >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- dmarc@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dmarc-le...@ietf.org
