I have been asked by Murray to assist with a consensus evaluation on the
discussion that has been going on for a while about the dmarcbis document and
how to move forward.
I have made an attempt to evaluate consensus on the topic, trying to look at it
from a complete outsider’s point of view an
My opinion is that Barry's text is good as is. As far as delimiting a SHOULD
NOT with another SHOULD is legit, this sentence sounds clear to me:
It is therefore critical that domains that host users who might
post messages to mailing lists SHOULD NOT publish p=reject. Domains
tha
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote on 2023-10-20 21:35:
(2) Mapping a misspelled "reject" or "quarantine" to "none" even only in
the report will be confusing; the domain owner will be told there's a
"none" out there when there isn't. A non-thorough domain owner might
conclude that the receiver is broke
I can add this.
I should note that generally, while there's an "error" field available, there's
no guidance about what should go in there. (not in 7489 either that I could
find in a brief search)
--
Alex Brotman
Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy
Comcast
> -Original Message
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 12:04 PM Brotman, Alex wrote:
> I should note that generally, while there's an "error" field available,
> there's no guidance about what should go in there. (not in 7489 either that
> I could find in a brief search)
>
Has there ever been any push for structured content th
Not that I’m aware of. But even if we leave it unstructured, including
examples about what may be useful could be of assistance.
--
Alex Brotman
Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy
Comcast
From: Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 3:12 PM
To: Brotman, Alex
Cc: Matthäus
On Monday, October 23, 2023 4:03:36 AM EDT Francesca Palombini wrote:
> I have been asked by Murray to assist with a consensus evaluation on the
> discussion that has been going on for a while about the dmarcbis document
> and how to move forward.
>
> I have made an attempt to evaluate consensus o
