John Levine writes:
> >My understanding is that DMARC WAS going through the standardization
> >process, and actually was to the state where experimental use was
> >justified (and in some sense actually required). ...
>
> No, not at all. DMARC was designed and implemented by a small closed
> group of large companies listed on the DMARC web site at
> http://www.dmarc.org/about.html
That's a tiny bit unfair. Our sister list, mailman-developers, has
been aware of DMARC for at least three years, and our opinions and
even participation have been solicited on at least two occasions.
> The DMARC group has asked the RFC Editor to publish the spec as a
> non-standards-track non-IETF independent submission. There was
> briefly talk of making it standards track until the DMARC group
> realized that gave the IETF change control, and we likely would change
> it, which they didn't want. The RFC Editor is currently thinking
> about it, and probably will publish on the theory that even if it's a
> bad idea, it might as well be documented.
If it goes that way, we should write a one-line BCP:
Best Current Practice for DMARC "p=reject"
If your name isn't "J. P. Morgan", don't.
Well, make that two lines:
AOL and Yahoo!, wake up! THIS MEANS YOU.
Hm. AFAICT sec. 3(a)(ii) of "Legal Provisions Relating to IETF
Documents" allows us to make only the necessary changes to their
document, and submit our version to the standards track. That might
be amusing! :-)
------------------------------------------------------
Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
