I have provided the best feedback I could as a reviewer with a bit of a security focus. I have a partially drafted response re nits but they are just nits and I have decided it is not worth my effort to perfect and send it. As a new set of eyes without the WG history, I hope my feedback has improved the document. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx On Sun, Oct 27, 2024 at 9:38 PM Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 10/27/2024 6:28 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote: > > I did not suggest a discussion of DMARK or DKIM. I suggested that they > be mentioned. > > Donald, > > SMTP is a protocol specification. The document already attempts to go far beyond it's scope for handling one submission and direct, associated deliveries. It has quite a bit of text that seeks to be an general architecture document, as well as trying to cover activities outside of Internet Mail, per se. It does these added jobs only partially, at best. There are historical reasons given, for not removing those bits of text, but it certainly does not justify adding more material that is best classed as a layer violation. > > DMARC, DKIM and SPF are all completely outside of the email transport protocol specification. They are very much IN scope for a broader discussion of email as a service. But that's a different goal. > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > mast:@dcrocker@mastodon.social -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
