> On Apr 9, 2023, at 2:33 PM, Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> wrote:
>
> > As Todd previously stated, my preference is for language that
> > acknowledges the primacy of the domain owner over interoperability
>
> The problem is that IETF standards are about interoperability, not about
> anyone’s primacy.
>
> There is an alternative, though: we can acknowledge that because of how those
> deploying DMARC view their needs over interoperability, DMARC is not
> appropriate as an IETF standard, and we abandon the effort to make it
> Proposed Standard.
+1, please make this an Informational status.
>
> I see that as the only way forward if we cannot address the damage that
> improperly deployed DMARC policies do to mailing lists.
+1
In fact, lets take a step back and split DMARCbis to:
DMARC-Reporting
DMARC-Policy
Let’s get reporting out the door and spend time to revisit the DKIM Policy
Model via DMARC which combines two protocols.
With the ESP now honoring DMARC as is, the middle ware is forced to take
drastic changes in order for the “mail men” to move mail.
Thanks Barry.
—
HLS
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
