It appears that Alessandro Vesely said:
>AFAICS, the topic is in scope[*] but it was dealt with in phase 1 of the
>charter (where ARC was produced), and we're now in phase 2. That's why I
>asked
>for off-line replies.
Even if it were in scope, it is still a bad idea for all the same reasons
AFAICS, the topic is in scope[*] but it was dealt with in phase 1 of the
charter (where ARC was produced), and we're now in phase 2. That's why I asked
for off-line replies.
At any rate, changing the mechanics of the list is something that can be done
by AMS irrespective of the WG work.
Be
Not surprised, but it could guide what comes next.
For the current charter, is it in-scope or out-of-scope to discuss causes
of, and responses to false PASS and unwanted FAIL?
DF
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022, 5:15 PM Seth Blank wrote:
> John is correct, this work is out of scope of our charter. We wil
John is correct, this work is out of scope of our charter. We will not be
revisiting our charter while dmarc-bis is in progress.
Seth, as Chair
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 2:07 PM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Out of scope? Scope is a choice, and is negotiable with
Out of scope? Scope is a choice, and is negotiable with those who approve
charters.
We could define scope to be "technologies which help evaluators correctly
identify messages from wanted senders, while hindering malicious
impersonators".
If we define our desired end result, we are more likely
This proposal is completely out of scope for this WG.
On Thu, 18 Aug 2022, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Hi all,
I rewrote this I-D to add the simple method to de-munge From: header fields
upon reception, which was briefly discussed on list last week (Girl Scout
troops):
https://datatracker.ietf
