On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Seth Blank <s...@sethblank.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 1:09 AM, Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmailteam.com> > wrote: >> >> I laugh as well, but it's more than p=reject isn't enough in the ARC >> world, because it doesn't distinguish between: >> a) I'm OK with email from my domain being sent via mailing lists; and >> b) no, this domain is only ever used for direct messages, it should never >> appear in ARC chains that don't also pass DKIM. >> > > The DMARC WG charter directly addresses this: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/charter/ > > Our stated goal is to fix indirect mail flows so that they do not break > under DMARC. To me, that's an explicit requirement of a), with b) being out > of scope. > +1. My understanding is that altering DMARC is off the table right now. We have to try to move forward. I'm particularly opposed to adding a new "p=" value without a great deal of thought put into it, lest the set of values there become hopelessly polluted with things representing every conceivable combination of authentication results and header field values, many of which will end up being ephemeral. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
