On 12/2/2020 1:55 AM, Steven M Jones wrote:

hen he commanded the tide to halt)" -- the latter phrasing is just /slightly/ too ponderous even for me... Does "requesting" really imply control over the outcome, rather than the expression of a desire?

My point is that I think the language MUST NOT be cast as saying anything about receiver behavior.  Rather, it must only talk about the domain owner's assessment of message validity, or the like.


I'd frankly recommend changing the labels for these expressions, but expect folk to argue that there is too much installed base and operational history.

Ah, now maybe we're getting somewhere. But if you toss that notion out, you have to follow up with an example or two. Which labels, and changing them in what way?

Well, I share that view of accompanying obligation... when I can.  I couldn't think of a reasonable 'hook' for the language, in the previous message.

But above, I see I wrote a perspective that might be useful: validity.

So, perhaps, something like:

   *p*: Domain Owner Assessment Policy (plain-text; REQUIRED for policy
   records). Indicates the severity of concern the domain owner has,
   for mail using its domain but not passing DMARC validation. Policy
   applies to the domain queried and to subdomains, unless subdomain
   policy is explicitly described using the "sp" tag. This tag is
   mandatory for policy records only, but not for third-party reporting
   records (see Section 7.1
   <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7489#section-7.1>). Possible values
   are as follows:

       *none*: The Domain Owner offers no expression of concern.

       *quarantine:* The Domain Owner considers such mail to be
       suspicious. It is possible the mail is valid, although the
       failure creates a significant concern.

       *reject: *The Domain Owner considers all such failures to be a
       clear indication that the use of the domain name is not valid. 
       See Section 10.3
       <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7489#section-10.3> for some
       discussion of SMTP rejection methods and their implications.

d/

--
Dave Crocker
dcroc...@gmail.com
408.329.0791

Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
American Red Cross
dave.crock...@redcross.org

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Reply via email to