On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 7:44 PM Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> On July 13, 2022 9:51:31 PM UTC, John R Levine wrote:
> >On Wed, 13 Jul 2022, John Levine wrote:
> >> It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy said:
> >>> Speaking as an AD now, you should expect me to complain about the
> "SHOULD"
> >>> in
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 11:12 AM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 6:13 AM Scott Kitterman
> wrote:
>
>> >> I think a choice within DMARCbis is a bad idea. Effectively the
>> choice exists. Evaluators will have the choice to stay with an RFC 7489
>> design or to upgrade to
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 6:13 AM Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> >> I think a choice within DMARCbis is a bad idea. Effectively the choice
> exists. Evaluators will have the choice to stay with an RFC 7489 design or
> to upgrade to DMARCbis.
> >
> >The incentive to upgrade is not clear. DMARC filters
On Thu, 14 Jul 2022, Scott Kitterman wrote:
In my view, standardizing two ways to do policy discovery and alignment would
be a substantial danger to interoperability and we'd be stuck with it
approximately forever.
I agree, it's a self-evidently terrible idea. "Temporary" transition
periods
On July 14, 2022 12:11:57 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>On Wed 13/Jul/2022 17:56:08 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On July 13, 2022 3:10:38 PM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy"
>> wrote:
>>> Once again, participating only:
>>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 3:43 AM Douglas Foster wrote:
[...]
>>>
On Wed 13/Jul/2022 17:56:08 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On July 13, 2022 3:10:38 PM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy"
wrote:
Once again, participating only:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 3:43 AM Douglas Foster wrote:
[...]
3) The critical question is whether we can treat the PSL as replaced
without
