On Sat 01/Apr/2023 13:17:55 +0200 Jim Fenton wrote:
Not picking on Murray here, but his message was the most recent that talked
about p=reject with respect to non-transactional email:
On 1 Apr 2023, at 15:53, Murray S. Kucherawy 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?
We shouldn’t be assuming that mailing lists are the only cause of breakage for
DMARC, and that transactional email is unimpacted by a p=reject policy.
Some people use email forwarders so that they can have an email address that’s
consistent if they change the email provider where their email is actually
received. Sometimes they do this for “branding” reasons as well, such as to
indicate their association with an organization or alumni association. Some of
these email providers break DKIM signatures along the way.
I have several such forwarding addresses, one of which is @alum.mit.edu, which
breaks my DKIM signatures when I send a message to myself. If I used that
address to receive transactional email from a domain with p=reject, and if my
actual email provider enforced DMARC, I might not receive transactional email.
+ 1, saying that transactional mailers can set p=reject scot-free, or anyhow
limiting who must not use DMARC is incorrect.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
