>> I have been trying to understand why such a big disconnect is >> possible between my usage of DMARC data and the standard one. I >> have concluded that it occurs because we are dealing with two >> protocols, not one, and the standard view conflates them >> unnecessarily. The first protocol is the algorithm for detecting >> DMARC PASS, and the second protocol is the algorithm for handling >> DMARC FAIL. > > No. > > There is one protocol - DMARC, and the application of that protocol > can nominally produce two results - PASS or FAIL. > > The protocol defines the methods for arriving at those results, and > offers the domain owner the opportunity to publish its opinion on what > should be done with messages producing a FAIL verdict, but does not > mandate any behavior for FAIL verdicts, nor should it. Message > handling decisions will always, always, always be at the discretion of > the receiving domain; their network, their rules.
I look at it a different way, coming to the same conclusion that it's one protocol: There's the part that domain owners do: publish DMARC policy records. There's the part that mail recipients do: determine DMARC PASS or DMARC FAIL, and then take action accordingly. They're two parts of one protocol and they are not at all independent; we are not conflating them. That's my opinion as a participant. As a chair, I clearly see consensus with the views that Todd and I, along with several others, have expressed in this discussion. I don't see that this line of discussion is going anywhere useful and I see it as a distraction from finishing the work. Let's please move on. Barry _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
