On Wed 24/Aug/2022 17:11:30 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 4:25 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
On Wed 24/Aug/2022 07:56:41 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
However, the charter, at paragraph 4, demands that any change made
by this working group which does not preserve compatibility with the
deployed base has to be justified. If suddenly the absence of a
published policy can result in a DMARC "pass" or "fail" when this
was not previously the case, and this results in different handling
decisions by receivers, I would say compatibility has not been
preserved. >>
We already made a change by allowing a default policy. DMARC records in
the installed base were illegal if they had no p= tag. So, at this time,
we are discussing of the difference between a record saying just v=DMARC1
and no record at all.
[...]
I don't see how that's relevant to the point I'm making.
Preserving compatibility?
The working group is able to make that change, but (a) consensus
must exist to do so, and (b) we need to justify the resulting
potential disruption adequately. >>
I see no disruption.
If DMARC implementations suddenly start reporting a "pass" or "fail" where
previously they reported a "none", and receiver decisions change
unexpectedly as a result, I don't see how we can gloss that over as not
being potentially disruptive.
Heck, many new domains defining a DMARC record after Proposed Standard
would have the same impact.
Consider that determining dmarc=fail without alignment checks is quite
unlikely.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
