On March 28, 2023 8:20:54 PM UTC, Todd Herr <todd.herr=40valimail....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 4:01 PM Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> >wrote: > >> >> "...MUST NOT deploy a DMARC policy other than p=none because use of >> p=reject >> or (to a slightly lesser extent) p=quarantine for such domains is >> extremely >> harmful to email interoperability. Mitigation strategies are discussed in >> [RFC 7960] and [RFC 8617]." >> >> I don't think we need to reiterate what p=reject does here, that's >> extensively >> addressed elsewhere in the document. I don't think we have enough data to >> opine either way about the effectiveness of such strategies, so it's >> enough to >> point at them here. We don't currently list RFC 8617 as a reference. I >> think >> introducing an informative reference here is useful. It's experimental, >> so we >> definitely don't want to put any normative language around it. >> >> I suspect that's probably not what you would find ideal (it's not what I >> would >> find ideal either, but I can live with it). Can you live with it? What >> do >> others think? >> >> >In my estimation, the language you propose here establishes the primacy of >interoperability over the needs/wishes of the domain owner. > >My preference is for language that acknowledges the primacy of the domain >owner over interoperability. > >I don't have time tonight to propose alternative text, but I wanted to >acknowledge that I've read your message and make a promise to propose >alternative text tomorrow.
Yes, but that's what RFCs are for. Thanks for replying. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
