On Thu 14/Mar/2024 16:44:22 +0100 Todd Herr wrote:
Issue 135 is open for the subject topic. Please add your thoughts to this thread and/or to the issue in Github.
I proposed an alternative text for section 5, Policy[*]. I repeat it here with an added sentence:
OLD A Domain Owner or PSO may choose not to participate in DMARC evaluation by Mail Receivers simply by not publishing an appropriate DNS TXT record for its domain(s). A Domain Owner can also choose not to have some underlying authentication technologies apply to DMARC evaluation of its domain(s). In this case, the Domain Owner simply declines to advertise participation in those schemes. For example, if the results of path authorization checks ought not to be considered as part of the overall DMARC result for a given Author Domain, then the Domain Owner does not publish an SPF policy record that can produce an SPF pass result. NEW A Domain Owner or PSO may choose not to participate in DMARC evaluation by Mail Receivers simply by not publishing an appropriate DNS TXT record for its domain(s). A Domain Owner can also adjust how some underlying authentication technologies apply to DMARC evaluation of its domain(s). To do so, the Domain Owner directly operates on its participation in those schemes. For example, if the results of path authorization checks ought not to be considered as part of the overall DMARC result for a given Author Domain, then the Domain Owner does not publish an SPF policy record, or it can use the neutral qualifier to avoid granting "pass" results to external domains (that is, for example "v=spf1 ?include:example.com -all"). Obviously, the other authentication technology has to be resiliently implemented in such case. Best Ale -- [*] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Mr0jW04HijJqeleW0sXZhWX-s3Q _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
