On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 11:38 AM Douglas Foster < dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Demolish" should have been limited to the notion that a domain owner has > a "right" to not be DMARC-evaluated, because he has not published a > policy. With tree walk, every message will have either a domain-published > policy or a PSD policy. > > A message asking for entrance to my network has NO rights. The only > reason to omit DMARC evaluation of a message is because it is not in the > interest of the evaluator to do so. That situation has not been > demonstrated. The RFCs cannot expect evaluators to act contrary to their > interest to comply with a document. > I'm not asserting that a message has any rights to enter your network. I'm a firm believer in the concept of "your network, your rules". If you have a rule that you will apply the DMARC mechanism regardless of whether or not a DMARC policy exists for a domain, then you are seemingly implementing a policy of "no auth, no entry" (and you are well within your rights to do so) but you are not following the DMARC protocol when doing so. -- *Todd Herr * | Technical Director, Standards and Ecosystem *e:* todd.h...@valimail.com *m:* 703.220.4153 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
