On Friday, August 26, 2022 11:51:51 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On Fri 26/Aug/2022 17:21:09 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote: > > Personally, I'm fine with the text here, but I would also be happy > > with removal of the BCP 14 key words here, like this: > > > > NEW > > If the set produced by the DNS Tree Walk contains no DMARC policy record > > (i.e., any indication that there is no such record as opposed to a > > transient DNS error), then the DMARC mechanism does not apply to this > > message and Mail Receivers need to use other means to decide how to > > handle the message. > > END > > This is nicer than MUST NOT. It makes more sense, since we also removed > the SHOULD when the record is found and the test fails.
I very much disagree. If there's no DMARC record, whatever you do after that is not DMARC and we should say so. Softening this language opens the door for all kinds of nonsense. People can and will do nonsensical things, but we need to make it very clear that this isn't what this document is about. Tampering with the opt-in nature of DMARC is a recipe for interoperability problems. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
