Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group charter proposal

Scott Kitterman <> Sat, 13 April 2013 12:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38C8521F85E7 for <>; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 05:29:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UlqS3QHSixSI for <>; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 05:29:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0d0:3001:aa::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80EF321F852A for <>; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 05:29:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7E8FD04088; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 07:29:28 -0500 (CDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=2007-00; t=1365856168; bh=crWTPJvCq7Yx01gJelGT7FHrbieu/dWEcaKoSKf8R/o=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Date:To:From; b=hAjKHXf6rbhjyaX8ZdsNIwEJvkBF5/Fs+mDVlUyIMaM4SGR3jv+EqgzdncyCqVx5t bQo4GPUW20qoUXgUQJttd6m5dMWM+3eXmMcisdtUROHeEuCJBPLXLyaowlKeKRxXIi zHBCgHSWzHsVA0YFwP6/oBwGDASIjhoKDjx5kVAw=
Received: from [IPV6:2600:1002:b10b:eb7d:82bb:5363:3b75:3fe3] (unknown [IPv6:2600:1002:b10b:eb7d:82bb:5363:3b75:3fe3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3E86AD04059; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 07:29:27 -0500 (CDT)
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <6600677.x1Szm294G3@scott-latitude-e6320> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Scott Kitterman <>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 08:29:24 -0400
Message-ID: <>
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group charter proposal
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 12:29:30 -0000

Dave Crocker <> wrote:

>On 4/12/2013 11:00 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> So Scott, what changes to the DMARC base spec are you seeking and
>>> why and who wants them and how do we know this?
>> In part, I don't. DMARC has been developed in private by a relatively
>> small group of people. I think it's not unreasonable to consider the
>> spec might be improved by broader review.
>  It's entirely reasonable.  That's why the draft charter provides for 
>such future effort: "However, if resolving any of the issues listed in 
>the areas of focus below does require changes to the base
>or if the specification needs to be revised to correct technical errors
>deemed essential for proper use, the group will recharter accordingly."
>  The specification has been public for considerably more than a year, 
>including a press release and a public discussion list, with adoption 
>covering roughly 60% of the world's mailboxes.  That's not a small base
>of experience.  So there's been plenty of opportunity for community 
>review and input, including requests for changes.  And yet, there is so
>far no such list of requests.
> >  Things that were written
>> by people who already "know" what the spec is supposed to mean are
>> often less clear to those outside the group. Until a broader group
>> actually reviews it, there's no way to know.
>   You are correct, of course.  However the range of implementers now 
>goes considerably beyond the original group, and yet there is so far no
>concrete list of interesting changes being requested.
>> That's not a matter of changing the protocol, but improving the text.
>    Well, that's what we originally submitted for chartering, but at 
>least one AD didn't like it.

I'll respond to the balance of your message once I'm back at a computer since collecting the relevant references using just my phone would be excessively painful. 

Was the one AD that didn't like it the discussion on this list or elsewhere? If it was elsewhere, please provide a reference so we can understand the nature of the objection.

Scott K