----- Original Message ----- > From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 10:27:40 AM > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] questions on the spec, was ... and two more tiny > nits, while I'm at it
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy < [email protected] > > wrote: > > I am asking the IESG and the ISE what the process is for making such > > adjustments now. > > > Mainly my resistance to further change comes from the fact that we've done > > last calls of varying kinds on this document more times than I can count. > > It > > really is time to put the non-IETF version to bed and hand it off, even > > with > > its weaknesses, and let the standards process take it from there. There's a > > working group already chartered to do exactly that; in fact, that was one > > of > > the premises of creating that working group. > > I've consulted with the Area Director sponsoring the document's conflict > review, and the ISE. Both of them agree that we will only make changes > approved by the ISE and only during AUTH48 at this point, and those will be > limited to correcting serious problems that would prevent current DMARC > implementations from interacting properly. Anything else can be left to the > DMARC working group on its standards track deliverable. > An argument can be made that this proposed change qualifies under that > definition, so please review it and comment as to whether it satisfies the > defect identified, or whether the change is necessary at all. I will assume > "yes" unless I hear otherwise. Again, the diff is here: > http://www.blackops.org/~msk/dmarc/diff.html Hold on... What is the decision matrix of SPF? SPF uses two strings, the RFC5321.mailfrom and the RFC5321.helo. Each string may or may not have an SPF record. What gives the spf status?
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
