On Tuesday, October 04, 2011 11:59:32 AM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > Frank Ellermann Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 11:06 AM > > To: SM > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [marf] Comments on > > draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-01.txt > > > > BTW, the draft does not mention Sender-ID at all. I take this > > as another indication that this "experiment" is now obsolete; > > RFC 4407 (PRA) was cute, but RFC 4405 (SUBMITTER) was a "FUSSP". > > I don't think MARF is in a position to be able to make that statement > explicitly. Further, since we appear to be in agreement that the > authentication results reported by this draft should include only those > things that were actually tested, and not a fixed set, it seems including a > "sender-id" result is on the table.
Does it have a constituency? There are quite a number of auth methods covered in auth-results that we don't cover and I don't think we should extend beyone SPF/DKIM unless someone needs it. Scott K _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
