On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:23 PM, J. Gomez <jgo...@seryrich.com> wrote:
> Couldn't the DMARC specification spell out that Receivers claiming to be > DMARC-compliant, when choosing to *accept* incoming messages from Senders > publishing p=reject (irrespective of whether such accepted messages passed > or not the DMARC checks), CANNOT after-the-fact reinject such received > messages into the public email infrastructure in any way that could render > them (or reveal them to be) DMARC-rejectable? > > So that if any Receiver-turned-Originator (i.e., Mediator) does otherwise, > they CANNOT claim to be DMARC-compliant? > > That would force DMARC-compliant Mediators to reject (or accept but not > resend) incoming email from p=reject domains, irrespective of whether such > mail passes or not the initial incoming DMARC checks. > > Then, if the market deems DMARC valuable by itself, pressure would be > applied by the "invisible hand" there were it needs to be applied (so that > reputable actors in the email ecosystem could claim to be DMARC-compatible). > Apart from the CANNOT bit, is that different from where we are today? -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
