> What if MIME-Version changed on every new MIME type?
(I presume you mean "subtype", as we've only defined two new media
types: example (RFC 4735) and font (RFC 8081).)
This is a red herring, as MIME was specifically designed to be
extensible by adding new media types and subtypes, as well as
On Sun 11/Jun/2023 00:32:01 +0200 Richard Clayton wrote:
Personally (and I am not writing on behalf of $DAYJOB$) I think that
signal "I know things have changed and am setting things up accordingly"
is most clearly sent by bumping the version number, rather than relying
on other more subtle
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In message <20230610210457.b4c22e924...@ary.qy>, John Levine
writes
>We have two of the largest mail operators in the world saying that if
>they can't tell which org domain scheme domain expects, they won't
>implement the tree walk. We have to do
On June 10, 2023 9:04:57 PM UTC, John Levine wrote:
>It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
>>
>>What's the incentive that any existing DMARC users (senders or receivers)
>>would have to invest additional resources in another email
>>authentication protocol?
>
>We have two of the largest
Why not say "SHOULD use tree walk", and then document, as explanation
for "SHOULD" instead of "MUST", non-normative reasons why you might
not?
I don't think that will fly with the VLMPs. The mandatory PSD seems
relatively easy to implement, just add it to the template you use for
everything.
Hm...
Why not say "SHOULD use tree walk", and then document, as explanation
for "SHOULD" instead of "MUST", non-normative reasons why you might
not?
Waddyathink?
Barry
On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 5:05 PM John Levine wrote:
>
> It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
> >
> >What's the incentive
It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
>
>What's the incentive that any existing DMARC users (senders or receivers)
>would have to invest additional resources in another email
>authentication protocol?
We have two of the largest mail operators in the world saying that if
they can't tell which
