On Thu 06/Jan/2022 22:50:42 +0100 John Levine wrote:
It appears that Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> said:
On Thu 06/Jan/2022 12:32:17 +0100 Douglas Foster wrote:
I perceive a false assumption that when a sender does not publish
p=reject, then his messages cannot be blocked for failure to validate,
and therefore DKIM signatures are unnecessary.
Or we could devise a protocol whereby a sender can supply customized policies
to different (kinds of) receivers.
But that wouldn't be DMARC, so please, let's stop.
I'd say customized policies are non-feasible rather than non-DMARC.
On the opposite side, enabling DMARC at the receiver, I have a
per-domain setup which I think is handy and useful. However,
per-domain policies are not feasible because 1) they would break
existing base and 2) would be too complicated to set up effectively.
I mentioned that (non-) possibility as a brainstorming means to foster
thinking about per- kind of receiver policies (see p=validate, for
example).
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
