It has been hard to miss the fact of near-zero participation from mailbox providers, cloud-based email filtering services, and filtering software vendors -- essentially everyone involved in 90+ percent of all email filtering. We do better at acquiring DNS statistics than at acquiring inbound mail statistics.
If we are writing instructions on how to filter email well, do any of these experts want our help? If we ever finish this process, will it matter to the entities who we presume will value our advice? DF On Sat, Apr 1, 2023, 11:33 AM Dotzero <dotz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 3:02 AM Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> > wrote: > >> > 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? >> >> When do folks get to line up so they can plead the case for their reason? >> >> I, for one, am not. We often use "SHOULD NOT" incorrectly to mean >> "MUST NOT, but we know it will be widely violated so we're saying >> SHOULD NOT". We need to stop doing that. >> > > A "standard" which is widely violated is not a standard. To publish a > standard one knows is and will be widely violated is a bit of a fool's > errand, n'est-ce pas? We need to stop doing that. > > Michael Hammer >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
