On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 8:52 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
> > 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.
>
(hatless)
I think both the old and new text say, normatively, the same thing. The
difference, to me, is perhaps subtle; one is descriptive ("do something
else, if you have to") while the other is more of an admonishment and
starts to feel like "don't do DMARC or anything like it".
I'm inclined to support the proposed new text, but I do understand the
resistance to it.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
