On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 9:31 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
> That's the old spec. The consensus of the working group is to remove the > normative constraint about p= (ticket #49). So now only v= is required. > As Chair, this is not the consensus of the group, nor what ticket #49 ( https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/49) says. What we removed was the normative requirement that p= MUST be the second tag in the record. p= is still REQUIRED. To Todd's point, DMARC is a means of communicating policy between domain owner and mail receiver regarding how to handle unauthenticated mail. DMARC does not function without policy. If someone believes policy can be spun out into a separate draft, please upload your suggestion as an I-D and we will discuss it. Seth -- *Seth Blank* | VP, Standards and New Technologies *e:* s...@valimail.com *p:* 415.273.8818 This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system.
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
