On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 11:51 AM Barry Leiba wrote:
> And now following this up as chair:
>
> I believe this topic has been discussed at length before and is well
> settled: the working group's rough consensus on the tree walk is
> clear. Todd, please close issue 113 as settled, with no document
And now following this up as chair:
I believe this topic has been discussed at length before and is well
settled: the working group's rough consensus on the tree walk is
clear. Todd, please close issue 113 as settled, with no document
change needed.
Let's please avoid opening tickets on
As a participant, I fully disagree with the second paragraph of this.
The justification for changing the mechanism is that in cases where
the mechanisms differ, the tree walk produces results that are more
likely to represent the intent of the sending side than consulting the
PSL does. This has
I have opened issue 113 to formally document my strong objections to the
current tree walk:
Current DMARC policies are configured based on RFC7489 and the PSL, and
evaluators obtain results based on those implementation decisions. Domain
owners may have many reasons to want an alternative to the
On Tue 02/May/2023 19:21:13 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 10:06 AM John Levine wrote:
No large provider has ever expressed any interest in either so I cannot
see any reason to spend more time on either one.
I believe Wei has expressed interest in the transforms
