On May 21, 2020 10:50:37 PM UTC, "John R. Levine" <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
>> Making p= an optional tag, even with the default of p=none, I believe
>would
>> further erode receiver confidence in DMARC policy statements, simply
>> because publishing a record with no p= tag provides no evidence that
>the
>> domain owner has given any thought whatsoever to their policy
>statement.
>
>I don't see that making p= optional solves any problems, so I agree we
>should continue to require it.
>
>"People who don't read the spec and publish garbage" is not a problem
>we
>solve by changing the spec.
RFC 7489 already says if it's missing receivers SHOULD assume p=none, so I
don't see the point in "requiring" something in a record when receivers are
already supposed to deal with it being missing.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
