> On Apr 12, 2023, at 2:15 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've been thinking about the point a few people have made now that DMARC has > two actors that cause the problem: Those who "blindly" apply "p=reject", and > those who advertise "p=reject". You do, indeed, need two to tango; > enforcement doesn't happen without an advertising sender and a participating > receiver. Maybe any "MUST NOT" advice we provide needs to cover both ends. > We need to be careful about admonishing participating receivers though. What > would we say to them about how to be selective in application?
Murray, you have RFC 5016 Section 10.3, Item10 as a Functional Specification reinforcement basis for a MUST NOT honor DMARC p=reject that causes 3rd party problems. Even though 5016 applied to SSP, it applies equally to DMARCbis too. — HLS _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
