On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 5:48 PM Dotzero <dotz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> >> But when you deploy DMARC and force lists to change the way they work, >> the experience is altered in a way users perceive as a degradation. We're >> taking something significant away, and the benefit is not perceived to be >> worthwhile. >> > > It may or may not be true for any given situation. You are assuming facts > not in evidence. There are end users who do not subscribe to email lists. > My wife is one such person. If users overall were truly upset as you > indicated, we would have expected users to flee en masse from the large > free webmail providers after they switched to p=reject. And yet they are > still around providing email services to millions and millions of users. >
Oh, the facts are very much in evidence. There's no need to assume anything. Hang around any IETF meeting for a few hours. It may not take even that long for someone to ask when the <expletive> DMARC problem is going to be fixed. I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that reality is nowhere near > as neat and simple as some might make things out to be. > > I would support SHOULD NOT but I think MUST NOT is a bridge too far. It > falls into the category of King Canute commanding the waters to retreat. > Publishing a standard (MUST NOT) which you know <some/many> will ignore > reduces the credibility of a standards organization which does so. SHOULD > NOT with an admonishment and explanation as to potential consequences makes > more sense to me. > Quoting from RFC 2119 which defines the all-caps key words we've come to know and love: 4 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119#section-4>. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before implementing any behavior described with this label. If we use SHOULD NOT, as you suggest, there's an implication that there might be a valid reason for non-transactional mail to use "p=reject". Are we okay with that? -MSK, participating
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
