On December 1, 2024 7:47:31 PM UTC, Jim Fenton <fenton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... >Considering the above problems, DMARCbis is neither safe nor effective. It should not be published as a standards track document by IETF. > I think all of the concerns Jim expressed in his email are essentially accurate. I've deleted them for readability, since I don't think they are relevant to the response I want to provide. If the choice were DMARC or no DMARC being used then I think it would be great to have that discussion, but that's not a choice the IESG or the IETF community gets to make. Unlike ADSP, it is very widely deployed and nothing we do will affect that. As written, I don't think the draft is meant to be a document that provides a protocol and pushes for universal acceptance because it's so useful everyone should get on board. I think it's written to say IF you are going to do DMARC (and there are reasons you might not want to), here's a somewhat better way to approach it.
