Re: [dmarc-ietf] milestone 1 *almost* done

2014-11-25 Thread Stephen J. Turnbull
Douglas Otis writes: Rather than issuing click through agreements to in essence say All your email must represent direct transactions from the provider. they could offer users a friendly SMTP compatible and safe solution that provides MUA configurations that expose aligned Sender header

Re: [dmarc-ietf] milestone 1 *almost* done

2014-11-25 Thread Hector Santos
On 11/21/2014 12:56 PM, Tim Draegen wrote: WG, The work found here: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/trac/wiki/MilestoneOneWiki ..is almost complete. However, there is a note (reinforced by feedback during the recent in-person meeting) to recast the collected issues in terms of RFC 5598.

Re: [dmarc-ietf] milestone 1 *almost* done

2014-11-25 Thread Douglas Otis
On Nov 25, 2014, at 2:49 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote: Douglas Otis writes: Rather than issuing click through agreements to in essence say All your email must represent direct transactions from the provider. they could offer users a friendly SMTP compatible and safe

Re: [dmarc-ietf] milestone 1 *almost* done

2014-11-25 Thread Stephen J. Turnbull
Douglas Otis writes: Sorry for not being clear. In the example given, this assumes a third-party service might be for a small outfit operating on a thin budget using an accounting firm to send messages on their behalf. The use case is well-understood. I wish you'd stop assuming people